I'     I 


$&s 


>.* 


Tlie    Prope  rty 

OF    THE 


■    ,r  .  ,\-iy 

BARTON    SQUARE,    SALEM. 


DEPOSITED 


—  IN      1  111-  — 


LIBRARY 


i  in  — 


ESSEX    INSTITUTE. 


t  V  ■ .    ^ 


Are  you  a  Christian  or  a  Calvinist  ? 


DO   YOU   PREFER   THE   AUTHORITY  OF  CHRIST   TO 
THAT  OF  THE  GENEVAN  REFORMER  ? 


both    the    form   and    spirit  op  these    questions   being 

suggested  bv  the  late  review  op  american  unitari- 

anism  in  the  panoplist,  and  by  the  rev.  mr. 

Worcester's   letter  to  mr.  chankiag. 


TO   WHICH   ARE   ADDED, 


SOME  STRICTURES  ON  BOTH  THOSE  WORKS. 


BY  A  LAYMAN. 


BOSTON: 

PKISTBD   AND   PUBLISHED    BY    WELLS   ASD   ULfcT 


^ 


2^-1815. 


Are  you  a  Christian  or  a  Calvinist  ? 


X  expect  the  intolerant  among  the  disciples  of  Calvin  will 
be  ready  to  consign  a  layman  to  the  fate  of  "  miregenerate 
reprobates,"  who  shall  dare  to  intermeddle  with  the  sacred 
mysteries  of  their  faith.  Their  master  would  never  suffer 
any  one  to  question  his  doctrines  under  pain  of  the  fagot. 
He  wished  to  dethrone  the  pope  only  that  he  might  put 
the  tiara  on  his  own  head.  His  disciples  in  this  country, 
and  in  this  alone,  retain  the  same  spirit.  They  would  have 
it  believed,  that  the  laity  are  to  adopt  their  faith  from  them, 
as  they  have  taken  it  from  Calvin  ;  and  the  pains  and  penal- 
ties of  infidelity  and  excommunication  are  now  openly 
denounced  against  those,  who  shall  call  in  question  any  one 
of  the  dogmas  uttered  two  centuries  ago  by  an  uninspired 
priest  of  Switzerland. 

If  some  future  historian  of  the  church  shall  relate,  that  in 
the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century,  in  a  country  whose 
constitutions  secure  the  freedom  of  religious  opinion,  and 
require  only  a  general  belief  of  the  christian  religion,  a  set 
of  men  combined  to  write  down  all  who  ventured  to  think 
for  themselves,  to  raise  the  cry  of  heresy  against  those  who 
preferred  the  scriptures  as  the  rule  of  their  faith  to  any 
human  creed,  it  certainly  will  be  deemed  incredible.  Pos- 
terity will  require  some  collateral  evidence  of  the  fact. 
They  will  search  the  records  of  our  historical  societies,  and 
the  alcoves  of  our  colleges,  for  any  controversial  writings 


4  ARE   YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

which  may  confirm  so  improbable  a  story.  It  is  with  a 
view  to  furnishing  such  a  document  that  I  write.  I  do  not 
mean  to  enter  into  (he  subtleties  of  a  theological  controversy, 
which  wonld  be  unsuitable  to  a  layman,  if  he  were  capable 
of  it.  The  principal  end  I  propose,  is  to  examine  our 
rights,  and  to  put  on  record  this  alarming  and  injurious, 
and  bold  attempt  to  invade  them  in  such  a  country,  and  in 
such  an  age.  It  is  one  of  the  facts  in  the  history  of  human 
nature,  that  deserve  to  be  noticed. 

There  is  one  point  in  which  all  parties  are  agreed,  that 
the  christian  religion  reposes  for  its  foundation  on  the  sacred 
scriptures  contained  in  the  Old  and  New  Testament. 
Some  difference  of  opinion  arises,  1o  be  sure,  as  to 
the  degree  of  inspiration  which  the  writers  of  those  books 
possessed  ;  but  in  those  books,  it  is  admitted,  are  contained 
all  the  rules  of  our  faith  and  conduct  as  christians.  These 
scriptures  were  originally  written  either  in  the  Greek  or 
Hebrew  languages.  They  were  for  nearly  fifteen  centu- 
ries imprinted,  and  were  only  preserved  by  manuscripts  or 
written  copies.  These  copies  were  scattered  over  the 
whole  world,  from  Abyssinia  to  the  remotest  north,  and 
from  Spain  to  Hindostan. 

No  two  editions,  even  of  printed  books,  ever  would  pre- 
cisely agree  with  each  other,  and  of  course  it  could  not  be 
possible  that  these  manuscripts,  in  so  many  languages,  and 
in  countries  so  separated,  should  be  alike  )  and  it  is  only 
by  a  comparison' and  collation  of  many,  that  any  approxi- 
mation to  the  certainly  of  the  purity  of  the  text  can  be 
obtained. 

The  present  translation  in  common  use  in  our  churches 
was  made  by  order  of  James  the  first,  two  centuries  ago. 
its  gene  tad  fidelity  and  correctness  are  admitted,  but  there 
must  be  room  for  improvement.  The  knowledge  of  the  Greek 
and  Hebrew  languages  has  become  much  more  generally 


OR   A  CALVINISTP  § 

diffused  than  it  was  when  that  translation  was  made.  Many 
critical  inquiries  have  since  been  made  into  those  languages, 
am!  more  erudition  has  been  displayed  since  that  period  than 
Leio:  e.  New  copies  of  the  Bible  have  been  discovered  and 
collated  with  the  old  manuscripts.  Some  errours  and  many 
detects,  especially  in  perspicuity,  have  been  found  in  the 
translation  now  in  use.  One  or  two  most  important  in- 
terpolations have  been  discovered,  and  are  admitted  to 
be  such  by  all  the  learned  men  of  Europe  of  all  sects. 

The  object  of  this  statement  will  presently  be  seen.  An 
honest  layman,  who  has  no  esprit  du  corps,  no  fear  for  the 
power  and  influence  of  his  sect  or  profession  ;  who  consi- 
ders religion  too  sober  and  serious  a 'thing  to  be  the  subject 
of  party  feelings  and  spirit,  would  naturally  say  upon  such 
a  statement,  "  It  is  my  duty  to  get,  if  I  can,  the  very  copies 
of  the  scriptures  that  the  authors  respectively  wrote  with 
their  own  hands,  and  to  learn  the  languages  in  which  they 
are  written  ;  and  to  take  as  a  standard  of  faith  only  what  I  find 
there  written,  and  not  what  fallible  men  have  inferred  from 
them."  But  as  he  cannot  get  these  originals,  and  as  he  may 
not  have  time  or  talents  to  learn  the  languages  in  which  they 
are  written,  he  will  take  the  best  translation  he  can  find,  and 
he  will  naturally  infer,  that  the  last  one,  if  executed  by 
learned  and  pious  men,  will  be  the  most  perfect.  As  he' 
finds  there  are  faults  of  great  moment  in  the  old  translation 
of  the  Bible,  he  will  be  anxious  to  attend  to  and  inquire 
after  every  improvement.  Such  ought  to  be,  and  such 
would  be,  the  conduct  of  every  anxious  inquirer  after  truth. 

Now  let  us  see  what  is  called  orthodoxy  in  the  present 
enlightened  age. 

It  is  contended,  that  the  translation  made  by  order  of 
king  James  the  first,  is  entitled  to  the  fullest  faith.  It  is 
regarded  by  many  as  inspired,  and  men  are  called  heretical 
and  wicked,  who  endeavour  to  procure  a  better  translation, 
and  desire  anjr  alteration  in  the  present  English  text. 


6  ARE    YOU   A   CHRISTIAN    ' 

Now  what  does  this  involve  ?  Not  only,  that  you  believe 
the  apostles  inspired,  but  that  every  clerk  and  copyist 
(whether  slave  or  monk)  was  also  inspired  ;  that  even  the 
orthodox  men,  who  made  the  interpolations  to  suit  their 
dogmas,  were  inspired  ;  and  that  all  the  bishops  and  divines 
who  made  the  translation  were  inspired.  I  introduce  this 
point  first,  because  it  comes  first  in  order. 

The  orthodox  also  maintain,  that  certain  opinions  and 
speculations,  not  to  be  found  in  the  scrpture,  but  which 
Calvin  declared  he  believed  were  intended  to  be  placed 
there,  or  pretended  that  he  discovered  in  them,  and  certain 
other  opinions,  held  by  an  assembly  of  Divines  in  Great 
Britain,  are  to  be  received  as  the  rule  of  our  faith  ;  however 
impossible  we  may  find  it  to  understand  such  doctrines, 
a.id  even  if  upon  the  most  accurate  examination  and  impar- 
tial inquiry  we  shall  be  convinced,  that  no  such  doctrines 
are  contained  in  the  scriptures. 

The  real  point,  and  the  only  point,  of  difference  between 
those  who  are  called  the  liberal  clergy  and  the  orthodox, 
rests  on  this  ground. 

The  orthodox  believe  in  Calvin  and  the  Westminster 
Assembly;  the  liberal  christians  in  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles. The  former  are  Calvinisfs — the  latter,  Christians. 
Yet  so  intolerant  and  unreasonable  are  the  party  who  have 
arrogated  to  themselves  the  title  of  orthodox,  that  they 
venture  to  deny  the  name  and  title  of  christians  to  the  fol- 
lowers of  Christ,  and  apply  it  exclusively  to  the  followers 
of  Calvin  and  of  human  councils,  assemblies,  and  creed- 
makers. 

Let  us  take  as  an  example  the  subject,  which  has  been 
the  occasion  of  the  late  attack  on  the  followers  of  Christ. 

Jesus  Christ  himself  was  an  Unitarian.  To  be  sure 
that  particular  title  was  unknown  in  his  day.  So  explicit 
was  his  language,  that  no  man  dared  during  his  life  to  ad- 


OR   A  CALVINISTp  J 

ranee  a  doctrine  so  derogatory  to  his  God  and  father, 
as  the  plurality  of  Gods,  or  the  equality  of  the  Son  with 
the  Father. 

So  far  as  his  conduct,  his  language,  his  example  and 
his  precepts  can  have  any  weight  in  deciding  what  was  his 
own  relative  character,  and  what  were  his  notions  of  the  unity 
and  indivisibility  of  God,  they  fully  support  the  proposition, 
that  he  was  in  the  simple  sense  of  the  word,  an  Unitarian. 
He  uniformly  declares,  that  all  his  power,  all  his  authority, 
all  his  miracles  are  derived  from  God.  The  form  of  prayer 
which  he  enjoined  upon  his  disciples  is  purely  Unitarian  ; 
that  is,  it  is  founded  on  the  idea,  that  there  is  but  one  God 
over  all,  distinct  from  himself  or  any  other  created  being, 
and  that  to  him,  and  him  alone,  are  due  adoration  and  praise. 

Dr.  Worcester  asserts,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  trinity  is 
one  of  those  essential  points  without  the  belief  of  which  no 
man  can  be  a  christian.  Yet  Christ  himself,  who  came  into 
the  world  for  the  sole  purpose  of  revealing  to  man  the  will 
of  God,  has  studiously  concealed  from  us  any  such  doc- 
trine ;  nay,  he  has  led  us  to  believe  by  repeated  and  express 
declarations,  that  he  was  in  every  respect  distinct  from  and 
inferiour  to  the  God  and  father  who  sent  him,  and  whose 
messenger  he  declares  himself  to  be.  It  is  then  because 
Dr.  Morse  and  Dr.  Worcester  know  more  of  the  character 
of  God  and  of  our  Saviour,  than  Jesus  Christ  knew  of  him- 
self, that  we  are  called  upon  to  believe  this  incomprehensible 
doctrine,  and  to  reject  and  view  with  abhorrence  those 
venerable  pastors,  who  prefer  the  authority  of  Christ  to  that 
of  these  fallible  mortals.  I  premised  that  I  did  not  intend 
to  enter  into  the  argument  upon  any  of  the  disputed  points. 
In  this  I  only  imitate  the  Rev.  Dr.  Worcester  and  the 
charitable  and  polite  editors  of  the  Panoplist.  It  is  not 
because,  though  a  layman,  I  am  entirely  unacquainted  with 
the  great  points  of  the  controversy,  but  it  is  because  I  think. 


g  ARE  YOU    A   CHRISTIAN 

if,  at  this  day,  argument  be  necessary  on  this  topick,  it  is 
the  province  of  learned  men,  whose  professional  pursuiis 
have  better  qualified  them  for  the  task.  My  object  is, 
simplv,  to  shew  that  the  Panoplist  and  Dr.  Worcester  httve 
assumed  too  much,  in  asserting  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  is  a  fundamental  article  in  the  creed  of  a  Christian. 

It  would  be  the  greatest  reproach  to  the  Deity,  to  his  Son 
Jesus  Christ,  and  to  the  gospel  which  he  taught,  to  suppose, 
that  a  doctrine,  fundamental  and  essential  to  salvation,  was 
not  onlj'  not  directly  and  plainly  enforced  in  (he  same  per- 
spicuous manner,  in  which  the  doctrines  of  a  future  state,  of 
charity,  of  purity  of  life,  are  inculcated,  but  that  Christ 
should  have  used  such  a  great  number  of  expressions  hidi- 
cating  his  own  inferiority,  and  the  unity  of  Goc!,  which 
must  necessarily  lead  men   astray  from  an  essential  truth. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  that  the  unity  of  the  supreme  God 
not  only  is  more  consonant  to  enlightened  reason,  apart 
from  revelation,  but  lhat  it  was  the  prevailing  sentiment  of 
the  patriarchs,  prophets,  and  distinguished  men,  whose  lives 
and  opinions  are  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament. 

Dr.  Worcester  insinuates  very  distinctly,  that  the  doc- 
trine of  the  gospel,  the  doctrine  taught  by  our  Saviour,  the 
doctrine  believed  and  maintained  by  many  venerable  and 
learned  meu  in  Europe  and  our  country,  as  to  the  unity  of 
God,  is  injurious  to  the  character  of  the  supreme  Being,  is 
a  very  different  and  inferiour  sort  of  religion,  from  thai  which 
Calvin  and  Athanasius,  and  Morse  and  himself  hold  ;  and 
that  for  this  reason,  no  communion  ought  to  be  held  with 
such  christians. 

Let  us  examine  how  far  this  is  true,  and  which  party 
hold  doctrines  the  most  injurious  to  the  supreme  Being,  i  <! 
to  his  Son,  whom  he  sent  into  the  world  to  enlighten,  to 
reform  and  to  save  us. 


OR  A  CALVINIST?  Q 

In  the  first  place,  in  regard  to  the  supreme  Being.  Is  it 
more  honourable  to  his  character  to  assert  thai  his  power  is 
divided,  that  there  are  three  coequal  beings  in  the  Godhead, 
who  may  be  opposed  in  will,  in  capacity,  in  power  ?  In  what 
does  this  differ  from  the  polytheism  of  the  ancienis,  except 
in  number  ?  We  have  dethroned  the  three  hundred  gods  of 
Greece  and  Rome,  and  we  substitute  in  their  place  three 
Gods  of  our  own  creation. 

In  the  second  place,  as  to  our  Saviour  himself.  Is  it 
honourable  to  him  to  contradict  the  doctrines  which  he 
taught  1  In  all  his  language  he  was  solicitous  to  exalt  the 
Father  above  himself.  "  Not  my  will,  but  thine  be  done." 
Yet  in  face  of  this  declaration  it  is  asserted,  that  they  were 
the  same  persons,  or  constituted  the  same  God.  If  they 
were  the  same  God,  how  could  the  will  of  the  Father  be 
done,  and  the  will  of  the  Son  be  left  undone  or  unaccom- 
plished ? 

He  also  repeatedly  declares,  that  the  works  which  he 
did,  and  the  miracles  which  he  wrought,  were  not  his  own 
works,  but  those  of  the  Father  who  sent  him. 

I  know  the  metaphysical  distinction,  which  was  invented 
in  the  ages  of  scholastick  philosophy  to  reconcile  this  appa- 
rent contradiction,  that  our  Saviour  had  two  natures,  one 
divine  and  the  other  human,  and  that  all  the  expressions  of 
this  sort  which  he  uses,  refer  to  his  human  character.  But 
what  an  idea  does  it  give  of  the  supreme  Being,  that  he 
should  make  a  revelation  to  mankind,  founded  on  the  nicest 
metaphysical  subtleties,  which  would  be  utterly  incompre- 
hensible to  the  greater  part  of  those  who  were  bound  to 
believe  them  on  pain  of  eternal  damnation  ? 

No.  The  gospel  is  no  such  snare.  It  is  an  injurious 
representation  of  it.  The  essential  points  are  taught 
clearly  and  distinctly.  There  is  one  God,  over  all,  the 
Father  and  Creator  of  the  universe.     He  sent  his  Sojj 


10  ARE  YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

info  the  world  to  announce  to  mankind  the  most  sublime 
truths,  to  seal  those  truths  with  his  blood.  But  he  com- 
manded him  to  declare  and  to  teach,  as  he  did,  that  there 
is  but  one  God,  the  Father  and  Judge  of  all  the  earth, 
from  whom  all  blessings  flow,  whose  messenger  he  was,  and 
upon  the  acceptance  and  belief  of  whose  doctrines,  men 
would  be  accepted  by  God  who  sent  him.  Every  thing 
in  this  representation  is  more  sublime,  more  honourable  to 
the  supreme  Being  than  in  the  other.  But  the  idea,  that  the 
supreme  Governour  of  the  universe,  in  his  proper  person, 
took  upon  himself  the  human  nature,  that  he  suffered  upon 
ihe  cross,  that  the  Godhead  was  for  a  time  divided,  and  part 
of  it  was  on  earlh  suffering  persecution  and  insult  from  men, 
and  part  in  the  heavens  regulating  and  governing  the  world, 
in  addition  to  its  incomprehensibilities,  is  infinitely  deroga- 
tory to  the  greatness  and  majesty,  which  we  are  taught  to 
ascribe  to  the  Maker  and  Governour  of  the  Universe. 

It  is  a  curious  fact,  but  no  less  curious  than  true,  (and  it 
shews  the  propensity  of  mankind  to  accommodate  every 
thing,  even  the  most  sublime  doctrines,  to  their  own 
schemes  and  party  passions)  that  the  general  tenour  of  all 
the  scriptures,  both  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  has 
been  overlooked  and  disregarded,  and  that  particular  pas- 
sages, conlradicted  by  their  general  tenour,  have  been  made 
the  foundation  of  a  creed,  which  is  utterly  opposed  to  the 
great  scope  and  object  of  revelation. 

If  it  were  possible  to  burn  all  the  decrees  of  councils,  so 
often  contradiclory,  so  profane,  so  wicked,  such  flagrant 
proofs  of  the  weakness  and  perversity  of  men  ;  if  all  the 
metaphysical  writers  and  the  authority  of  assemblies  could 
be  annihilated  and  forgotten  ;  if  the  scriptures  could  be  deliv- 
ered to  mankind  unbiassed  by  authority;  if  no  establishments 
existed  in  anycountry  founded  on  sectarian  principles  ;  it  is 
not  to  be  doubted,  that  the  worship  of  one  true  God,  the  Father 


OR  A^fALVINIST?  JJ 

and  Governour  of  the  universe,  would  prevail  throughout 
every  country,  in  which  the  scriptures  were  read  ;  and  due 
and  sublime  honours  would  be  rendered  (o  his  Son  who  was 
made  the  glorious  instrument  of  revealing  these  truths  to 
mankind.  Men  would  then  be  as  fearful  of  placing  the  Son 
on  an  equality  with  the  Father,  as  he  himself  was.  They 
would  be  contented  to  assign  him  a  place  at  his  right  hand, 
as  the  first  and  greatest  of  created  beings  who  had  appeared 
in  this  world.  They  would  view  him  as  their  kind  and  be- 
neficent Saviour  and  Mediator,  but  they  would  shudder  at 
the  thought  of  enthroning  him  with  the  awful  but  beneficent 
God,  the  almighty  Maker  and  Governour  of  the  universe. 

We  all  know  the  lofty  ground,  upon  which  the  Calvinistg 
maintain  their  doctrines,  and  we  equally  know  the  weakness 
of  that  foundation.     It  rests  upon  what  they  are  pleased  to 
call  the  authority  of  councils    and    assemblies,  or   as  they 
style  it,  the  uninterrupted  opinions  of  the  venerable  reform- 
ers and  of  the  ancient  churches  since  the  reformation.  This 
authority  is  the  same  upon   which  reposes  the  infallibility 
of  the  Romish  church.     The  doctrine  of  transubstantiation 
has  this  same  basis,  and  is  not  lest  plausibly  supported  by 
scripture.     The  points  upon  which  the  reformers  differed 
from  the  ancient  church,  are  not  more  clearly  or  satisfacto- 
rily proved,  than  are  the  opinions  upon  which  the  Lardners 
and  Watts's  and  Paleys  have  ventured  to  dissent  from  the 
Calvinistick   school.     But  when  it  is  recollected,  that  till 
within  the  last  century,  faith  was  settled   by  ecclesiastical 
authority,  and  heresy  was  punished  with  flames ;  when  it  is 
known  that  to  this  day,  dissent,  with  respect  to  the  clergy, 
is  followed  even  in  England  with  expulsion  from  the  church, 
and  to  all  with  many  civil  disabilities  ;  and  that  in  our  country 
similar  penalties  have  been  inflicted  on  those  who  ventured 
to  prefer  the  gospel  to  the  Assembly's  Catechism,  or  our 
Saviour  as  their  leader  to  Calvin,  wise  laymen,  who  do  not 


J2  ARE   TOU  A   CHRISTIAN- 

mingle  in  theological  controversies,  will  not  attribute  much 
weight  to  the   antiquity  or  prevalence  of  certain  dogmas. 

We  agree  with  Dr.  Worcester,  and  we  are  happy  to 
agree  with  him  in  some  points,  that  south  of  Massachusetts 
there  is  very  little  freedom  of  religious  opinion.  Men  must 
think  as  they  are  bid,  not  as  they  believe. 

Those  men  in  all  countries  who  pursue  the  clerical  pro- 
fession are  generally  poor.  They  rely  on  the  hierarchy 
or  governing  party  for  their  patronage  and  recommenda- 
tion. In  Europe,  and  even  in  England,  such  is  the  supe- 
riour  splendour  of  the  established  churches,  so  poor  and 
humble,  though  firm  and  resolute  are  the  dissenting  societies, 
that  it  requires  something  of  an  apostolical  firmness  to  resist 
the  temptation  of  conformity. 

In  our  own  country,  till  within  fifty  years,  the  same  spirit 
of  intolerance  had  choaked  up  the  channels  of  free  inquiry. 
But  if  the  scriptures  should  ever  get  to  be  popular,  if  they 
should  ever  attain  to  a  fair  equality  with  the  creeds  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  and  rival  in  some  degree  the  dog- 
mas of  Dr.  Morse,  and  the  decisions  of  Dr.  Worcester,  we 
should  have  very  little  doubt  that  Christ  would  soon  be- 
come the  leader  instead  of  Calvin,  and  the  Bible  take  the 
place  of  the  Assembly's  Catechism.  This  day  we  feel  to 
be  distant.  We  know  that  there  are  some  determined 
spirits,  that  are  resolved  to  stand  by  their  peculiar  doc- 
trines, rather  than  those  of  the  gospel.  They  are  induced 
to  do  this,  partly  because  mystery  and  passion,  and  their 
peculiar  tenets,  recommend  them  to  the  common  class  of 
hearers.  The  Sybilline  oracles  owed  a  great  portion  of  their 
authority  to  their  incomprehensibility.  The  teachers  of  a 
doctrine  which  the  hearers  do  not  understand,  are  supposed 
by  them  to  have  supernatural  gifts.  This  idea  is  encouraged, 
and  kept  up,  and  we  could  not  notice  but  with  a  smile  the 
comparison  seen  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Worcester,  between  him- 


OR  A   CALVIN  1ST?  ]3 

self  and  friends,  and  the  early  apostles.  He  and  his  party, 
he  thinks,  are  as  much  entitled  to  decide  authoritatively 
upon  the  scriptures,  as  were  the  men  upon  whom  the  Holy 
Ghost  descended,  though  they  have  not  the  power  of  con- 
firming  the  truth  of  their  doctrines  by  miracles.  Hence, 
that  very  reverend  gentleman  treats  with  much  levity  and 
wit  Mr.  Channing,  whose  character  is  truly  apostolick, 
though  he  pretends  to  no  inspiration. 

I  shall  hereafter  notice  the  unfairness  with  which  the  let- 
ter of  Mr.  Channing  is  treated ;  but  at  present  I  shall  con- 
fine myself  to  the  point  in  question,  how  far  an  acquies- 
cence in  the  doctrines  of  Calvin  is  a  proof  of  their  correct- 
ness. It  is  known  that  the  English  divines  adopted  them,  and 
the  thirty-nine  articles  are  partly  founded  upon  them.  That 
church  also  adopts  the  Athanasian  creed,  and  still  continues 
it  in  its  formula.  There  is  not  a  congregation  in  Massachu- 
setts or  Connecticut  which  would  not  shudder  at  its  recital, 
nor  is  there  a  clergyman  in  either  state  who  would  dare  to 
repeat  it  from  his  desk. 

If  then  all  men  in  this  country  agree  to  renounce,  as  too 
horrible  for  utterance,  one  portion  of  the  orthodox  creed 
sanctified  by  the  usage  of  many  centuries,  to  what  amounts 
the  boasted  authority  of  the  Westminster  confession  of 
faith  ? 

In  Massachusetts,  the  prevailing  opinion  is  perhaps  yet 
Calvinistick,  and  so  thoroughly  have  the  disciples  imbibed 
the  spirit  of  their  master,  that  they  will  permit  no  straggling 
partizans,  no  wavering  opinions.  They  must  swallow  Calvin 
and  all  his  works  as  the  test  of  their  orthodoxy,  or  they  are 
denounced  as  hereticks.  Those  who  doubt,  or  are  even 
moderate  and  candid,  are  damned.  The  Panoplisty  allu- 
ding to  these  unhappy  victims  of  moderation  and  christian 
feelings,  says,  "  There  are  others  too,  who  are  too  modest 
and  unassuming  to  preach  or  act  decisively,  because  for- 


J4  ARE   YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

sooth  they  are  not  satisfied  about  certain  controverted 
points.  Let  such  persons  abandon  the  office  of  teaching 
and  return  to  their  studies  till  they  are  satisfied." 

We  have  seen  insolence  in  all  its  forms.  We  have  seen 
the  quintessence  of  tyranny  in  the  person  of  the  late  em- 
perour  of  France,  but  never  did  we  meet  with  an  exam- 
ple of  such  arrogance. 

Do  the  clergy  of  Massachusetts,  Calvinistick  or  Ar- 
minian,  Arian  or  Hopkinsian,  mean  to  encourage  sack  sen- 
timents ?  Can  there  be  a  more  honest  or  honourable  reason 
for  forbearing  to  touch  controversial  points,  than  that  a  man 
is  not  satisfied  about  them  ?  The  editors  of  the  Panoplist 
virtually  recommend  to  such  men  who  conscientiously  have 
scruples,  to  quit  their  livings,  abandon  their  families,  and  go 
to  Andover  (for  that  must  be  the  meaning)  to  get  indoctri- 
nated. 

Suppose  a  candidate  of  this  school  settled  with  a  full  con- 
viction of  Calvinism,  htving  obtained  the  certificate  (which 
they  are  so  eager  to  withhold  in  case  of  conscientious  scru- 
ples) should  change  his  mind,  or  at  least  have  doubts 
excited,  what  is  this  advice  ? 

"  You  have  had  all  the  learning  which  Professor  Stewart 
could  infuse  into  jrou,  you  have  all  the  grace  and  goodness 
and  unction  which  Dr.  Morse  could  communicate,  yet  inas- 
much as  you  have  doubts, as  you  are  'too  modest  and  unassu- 
ming' to  preach  Calvin  against  Christ  and  against  your  own 
conviction,  you  must  turn  your  children  into  the  streets, and 
come  back  to  Andover  to  be  reinstated  in  orthodoxy  ?" 

Great  and  benevolent  God  !  Jesus,  thou  gracious  and 
divine  Master  !  Is  this  the  religion  which  you  intended  to 
inculcate  ?  The  confident  and  assuming,  the  immodest 
and  impudent  only  can  retain  their  stations  as  teachers  of 
your  divine  religion,  but  the  "  modest  and  unassuming," 
those  who  have  conscientious  scruples  about  admitting  the 


OR   A  CALVINIST?  J  5 

jargon  of  men  who  have  disgrace*!  your  name  and  your 
religion,  are  to  be  discarded  from  Ihe  ministry ! 

It  is  not  in  Massachusetts  alone  that  the  works  of  perse- 
cution and  intolerance  are  wrought.  The  lay  part  of  the 
community  have  suffered  themselves  to  be  enthralled  in 
every  part  of  the  Union.  No  man  has  a  higher  respect  for 
the  clergy  than  we  have,  but  we  fear  they  are  undermining 
their  own  influence,  and  giving  power  to  their  adversaries 
by  this  intolerant  conduct  towards  one  another.  We  shall 
not  allude  to  the  cases  which  we  all  have  known  in  Con- 
necticut, in  which  good  men  were  driven  away  from  their 
flocks,  on  account  of  maintaining  evangelical  doctrines 
against  the  creeds  and  opinions  of  men. 

But  this  we  must  state.  An  orator  at  one  of  their  publick 
exercises  before  commencement,  most  distinctly  recom- 
mended the  study  of  the  classicks,  and  urged  it  on  the 
ground,  that  they  were  more  sedulously  perused  in  a  sister 
college,  (meaning,  as  we  believe,  at  Cambridge)  and  that  this 
knowledge  was  there  perverted  to  the  purposes  of  "  infideli- 
ty !  !"  There  is  something  so  unchristianlike  in  a  sentiment 
of  this  sort,  so  utterly  unfounded  and  notoriously  false,  that 
it  requires  all  the  charity  which  the  gospel  enjoins  to  for- 
give it. 

It  is  the  more  unjust,  as  they  knew  at  that  time,  that  our 
university  had  recently  sent  forth  the  most  learned  and  able 
work  in  defence  of  Christianity,  by  a  young  man  since  elected 
to  a  professorship  in  our  college,  that  America  had  ever 
produced. 

They  knew  then,  and  they  know  now,  that  for  zeal  for  the 
truth  and  authenticity  of  the  scripture,  for  respect  to  the 
christian  religion,  and  for  ardour  in  its  dissemination,  the 
University  of  Cambridge  yields  to  no  seminary  in  om* 
country. 


16  ARE   YOU  A  CHRISTIAN' 

No.  If  was  a  sentiment  derogatory  to  the  orator,  and 
equally  so  to  those,  who,  I  am  grieved  to  say,  approved  it. 
It  was  a  sentiment  arising  from  an  unworthy  spirit  of  rivalry 
and  jealousy,  a  narrow  leeling  of  religious  prejudice.  The 
officers  of  the  college  at  Cambridge  were  to  be  charged 
with  infidelity,  for  not  bowing  to  the  authority  of  the  ortho- 
dox formula,  and  yielding  obedience  to  the  rescripts  of  the 
Calvinistick  papacy.  Never  did  a  sentiment  injurious  to  any 
other  college,  escape  from  the  lips  of  any  student  at  Cam- 
bridge in  a  publick  exercise.  We  know  too  well  what  we 
owe  to  our  own  dignity  ;  and  whatever  the  emissaries  of  that, 
and  of  other  colleges,  settled  in  our  state,  may  do  to  irritate 
us  and  to  build  up  their  own  seminaries  ;  however  zea- 
lously they  may  work  to  weaken  our  institution,  and  propa- 
gate calumnies  to  render  our  Alma  Mater  odious,  we  shall 
abstain  from  recrimination.  We  conGde  in  the  just  and 
equitable  feelings  of  our  people,  that  they  will  never  per- 
mit the  tongue  of  slander  to  alienate  their  affections  from 
an  establishment,  which  has  been  the  great  and  best 
source  of  blessings  to  our  country,  and  which  was  never 
belter  administered,  nor  upon  principles  more  truly 
christian,  than  it  is   at  the  present  moment. 

Considering  then,  that  non-conformity  to  the  dogmas  of  the 
church  has  in  most  ages  and  in  most  countries  been  punished 
with  death,  and  in  all  with  the  loss  of  publick  reward,  it 
would  seem  to  be  no  very  powerful  argument  in  favour  of 
any  tenets,  that  they  had  been  maintained  for  a  great  period 
of  years  and  by  very  respectable  divines. 

Even  in  our  own  country,  the  Review  in  the  Panoplisl 
now  in  question,  and  the  letter  of  Dr.  Worcester,  afford 
pretty  strong  proofs  of  the  danger  of  dissenting  from  pre- 
vailing creeds.  Our  venerated  clergymen,  to  be  sure,  are 
not  carried  to  the  stake,  but  they  are  scourged  with  thongs 
of  scorpions.     These   orthodox  gentlemen,  as  if  ex-  Cathe- 


OR  A  CALVINIST?  |f 

dra,  have  issued  (heir  bulls  of  excommunication,  and  (what 
I  believe  the  bulls  did  not  usually  contain,)  all  the  malignity 
of  canstick  wit  is  exerted  to  render  the  excommunicated 
odious  and  detestable. 

Yes.  I  will  not  except  Dr.  Worcester  from  this  charge, 
though  he  flatters  himself  he  has  concealed  the  gall  under  a 
cover  of  honey. 

When  I  read  the  Review  in  the  Panoplist,  I  asked  myself, 
what  honourable  or  even  honest  end  do  these  gentlemen 
propose  to  themselves  ? 

Is  it  the  advancement  of  God's  glory,  and  the  mainte- 
nance and  spread  of  truths  which  they  deem  important? 

They  have  certainly  a  strange  way  of  effecting  their 
design.  Is  God  to  be  glorified  by  an  exulting,  haughty  and 
insolent  triumph  over  brethren  who  are  in  errour  ? 

Does  the  glory  of  God  require,  that  the  most  shameful  and 
gross  misrepresentations  and  perversions  should  be  used  to 
excite  and  prejudice  the  publick  mind  against  the  victims 
of  these  holy  gentlemen's  wrath  ? 

Upon  whom,  and  in  what  manner  was  this  Review  and  Dr. 
Worcester's  voluntary,  and,  as  I  shall  shew,  most  unhappy 
defence  of  it,  intended  to  operate  ? 

Are  they  intended  for  the  benefit  of  the  pretended  cul- 
prits, the  hereticks  themselves  ?  Is  it  believed  that  Mr.  Chan- 
ning,  and  Mr.  Thacher,  and  Dr.  Kirkland  will  be  convinced 
or  reformed,  or,  if  they  please,  frightened,  by  this  denuncia- 
tion ?  Had  they  so  little  knowledge  of  human  nature  as   to 
think,  that  detected  calumny  would  not  finally  redound  to 
the  honour  of  the  calumniated  ?  Or  did  they  hope  to  sow 
discord  among  their  respective  parishes  !  Did  they  encou- 
rage the  malignant  expectation,  that  they  should  excite  dis- 
trust among  the  members  of  their  churches,  infuse  a  little 
gall  where  nothing  but  nectar  had  flowed,  produce  bitterness 
instead  of  love,  lessen  the  veneration  and  affection  almost 
3 


jg  ARE  YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

unexampled,  which  the  citizens  of  Boston  entertain,  and 
justly  entertain,  for  their  pastors,  and  diminish  their  salu 
tary,  I  had  almost  said,  divine  influence,  over  the  lives  and 
morals  of  their  people  1  Or  did  they  encourage  the  still 
prouder  thought,  that  by  their  eloquence,  so  tenderly,  so 
fairly,  and  so  powerfully  exerted,  they  could  utterly  uproot 
these  gentlemen  in  the  es(eem  of  their  friends  and  flocks, 
and  suddenly  convince  them,  that  they  had  been  nurturing 
in  their  bosoms  a  set  of  hypocrites,  of  infidels  ;  men  who, 
under  the  guise  and  garb  of  religion,  had  been  secretly 
undermining  their  dearest  hopes,  and  blighting  the  fair 
fruits  of  religion  in'!  their  hearts  ?  Did  they  hope  to  make 
their  respective  parishioners  believe,  that  Lathrop  and 
Cbanning,  and  Lowell  and  Thacher  were  men  of  deceit  and 
artifice,  making  their  religion  a  mere  cloak  to  serve  the 
cause  of  infidelity,  and  that  Dr.  Morse  was  the  only  man  in 
the  vicinity  true  in  the  "  faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints," 
and  full  of  charity  and  good  works  ?  I  appeal  to  the  feelings 
of  all  the  persons  who  have  fco  long  known  these  venerated 
clergymen,  whether  they  can  believe  that  such  was  the 
abject  of  the  Panoplist  and  Dr.  Worcester  1  Dojrou  think, 
my  brethren,  they  aimed  at  your  conversion  and  salvation, 
when  they  plunged  the  dagger  into  the  hearts  of  your  pastors 
and  friends  ? 

But  perhaps  Dr.  Worcester  will  say,  "  this  is  declama- 
tion and  an  appeal  to  the  passions,"  as  he  has  said  of  Mr. 
Channing's  letter. 

And  pray,  if  a  man  calls  you  a  murderer,  or  an  adulterer, 
when  j*ou  are  without  stain,  and  does  not  condescend  to 
reason  or  argue,  what  course  have  you,  but  to  appeal  to 
your  known  character  ?  and  does  the  gospel  or  any  other 
code  of  morals  require,  that  you  should  be  so  lukewarm  as 
to  appear  indifferent  to  your  own  reputation  ?  How  much 
more  then  is  zeal,  and  honest  ardour  commendable  in  the 


©R  A  GALVINIST!1  J9 

defence  of  our  friends  whom  we  have  long  known  and  justly 
value  ! !  Yes  !  I  am  ready  to  acknowledge  that  any  doc- 
trine which  would  compel  me  to  believe  that  Dr.  Morse 
was  a  saint  and  Mr.  Channing  a  sinner,  that  the  first  was 
acceptable  to  God,  while  the  other  was  the  object  of  his 
wrath,  that  the  former  was  the  friend  of  Jesus  and  the  lat- 
ter hk  foe,  I  should  for  that  reason  alone  reject.  I  should 
do  it  on  just  grounds.  For  I  should  say,  "  my  reason  may 
be  fallible,  arguments  may  deceive  me,  but  experience  can- 
not. I  know  Mr.  Channing  to  be  practically  the  admirer 
and  follower  of  Jesus.  I  am  not  so  weli  convinced  as  to  hia 
accusers."  I  know  it  is  a  short  way  of  reasoning,  but  for 
a  layman  it  is  safer  than  to  enter  into  all  the  subtleties  of  the 
schools.  I  say  therefore,  Dr.  Morse  may  be  a  better  Cal- 
vinist.  He  might  perhaps  contend  more  zealously,  and  be 
more  ready  to  burn  Mr.  Thacher  as  his  master  did  Serve- 
tus,  but  I  doubt  whether  he  is  a  better  christian  ;  that  is, 
I  doubt  whether  he  has  a  greater  love  for  Christ,  or  is  more 
disposed  to  obey  his  precepts. 

I  will  own,  that  I  have  derived  actual  and  great  light  from 
this  Review  and  Dr.  Worcester's  letter,  as  to  the  respective 
merits  of  the  Calvinistick  and  Christian  parties. 

I  find  the  former  intolerant,  disposed  to  slander  and 
backbite  their  brethren.  I  find,  under  colour  of  great  zeal 
for  the  cause  of  religion,  they  indulge  the  most  malignant 
passions,  passions  which  our  Saviour  most  explicitly  con- 
demned. 

I  find  the  whole  temper  and  tone  of  the  Review  calcu- 
lated tolshew  their  triumph  over  their  opponents,  whom  they 
thought  they  had  got  in  their  toils. 

If  all  the  orthodox  have  these  feelings,  if  they  support 
and  countenance  this  work  and  indulge  such  a  spirit,  we 
shall  for  the  future  understand  what  orthodoxy  means. 
We  shall  understand  it  to  be  a  sect,  violent  in  its  passions, 


>>w  ARE  TOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

intolerant  in  its  principles,  and  utterly  regardless  of  the 
means  by  which  its  purposes  are  effected.  I  look  upon  it, 
that  the  good  and  candid  of  that  party  are  bound  to  come 
out  openly,  and  separate  themselves,  lest  they  be  confound- 
ed with  these  men  who  have  undertaken  officiously  to 
represent  (hem. 

One  thing  is  certain,  that  if  the  principles  and  spirit  of 
i)ie  Panoplist  are  to  prevail  with  all  whom  it  professes  to 
represent,  a  new  and  more  dreadful  schism  must  take  place 
in  the  church  than  has  disgraced  it  for  many  ages,  and  the 
cause  of  religion  must  suffer,  for  we  never  shall  abandon, 
through  fear  of  insult  and  reproach,  men  the  most  venerable 
for  their  piety  and  virtues. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  make  a  few  remarks  upon  the  Re- 
view in  the  Panoplist,  and  the  letter  of  the  Rev.  Samuel 
Worcester,  D.  D.  I  shall  consider  the  last  work  in  the 
first  instance,  partly  because  the  author  has  evidently  the 
best  faculty  of  varnishing  over  a  bad  cause,  partly  because 
he  affects,  and  I  am  sorry  to  say  (as  it  appears  to  me)  only 
affects,  a  superiour  degree  of  moderation ;  but  chiefly 
because,  in  considering  his  defence  of  the  Panoplist,  we 
shall  naturally  be  led  to  examine  the  merits  of  that  work. 
We  shall  be  mistaken  if  the  honest  part  of  society  do  not 
say  of  Dr.  Worcester, 

Nee  defensoribus  istis — tempus  eget. 

The  professed  object  of  Dr.  Worcester  is,  to  defend  the 
editors  of  the  Panoplist  from  the  charge  of  misrepresenta- 
tion, preferred  and  urged  against  them  by  Mr.  Channing. 

In  common  life,  that  is  among  laymen,  we  are  very  much 
disposed  to  abhor  cunning  and  prevarication.  We  think 
that  a  good  cause  does  not  require  it,  and  that  a  bad  one  is 
not  aided  by  it.  When  we  see  a  man  adhering  to  the  letter 
and   violating  the  spirit  of  any  rule,  we  usually  call  him  a 


OR  A  CALVINISM  21 

Jesuit.  We  say  that  such  a  man  may  be  a  good  special 
pleader,  an  adroit  pettifogger,  but  he  is  not  a  fair  and  hon- 
ourable combatant.  In  a  clergyman  such  a  spirit  is  consider- 
ed as  peculiarly  unworthy.  To  be  sure  one  religious  order, 
which  the  general  indignation  of  mankind  suppressed  in  the 
last  century,  was  accused  of  this  disposition  to  subterfuge. 
We  should  be  very  much  grieved  to  see  the  spirit  of  St. 
Omer's  revived  in  our  country,  and  especially  among  those 
who  style  themselves  pre-eminently  the  saints. 

That  Dr.  Worcester  has  attempted  to  obtain  an  unworthy 
triumph  over  Mr»  Channing,  on  the  ground  of  mere  verbal 
criticism,  that  he  has  either  misunderstood  or  misrepresented 
the  general  spirit  of  the  Panoplist  review,  we  think  will  be 
obvious  to  all  who  shall  attend  to  our  remarks. 

The  Panoplist  does  mean  to  convey  the  idea,  that  that 
portion  of  the  clergy  and  of  liberal  christians  in  our  country, 
who  deny  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  are  chargeable  with 
all  the  opinions  which  Mr.  Belsham  and  the  English  Uni- 
tarians hold.  This  was  the  great  scope  of  the  work.  The 
whole  effort  of  the  Reviewers  was  directed  to  fix  upon 
every  man  in  this  country,  who  differed  from  the  Calvinists 
as  to  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead,  all  the  other  peculiar  no- 
tions and  sentiments  which  Mr.  Belsham  maintains. 

Dr.  Worcester  resists  this  charge,  by  calling  upon  Mr. 
Channing  to  shew  any  distinct  phrase  or  paragraph,  which 
in  itself  bears  this  meaning,  and  he  considers  himself  as  tri- 
umphant, because  no  one  sentence  taken  by  itself  will  bear 
this  construction. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  christian  world  have  been  from 
the  third  century  divided  on  the  question  of  the  Trinity. 
At  one  time  the  Arians  had  the  majority  throughout  all  the 
christian  community,  and  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  powerful 
arguments  of  fire  and  fagot,  theirs  would  probably  have  con- 
tinued  to  be  the   prevailing  doctrine  of  christians.     The 


•22 


ARE  YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 


Arians  denied  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  yet  they  no  more 
resembled  the  Socinians  in  many  of  their  opinions,  than  the 
Calvinists  do  the  Hopkinsians,  or  the  Papists  either  of  them. 
These  facts  were  well  known  to  the  editors  of  the  Pano- 
plist  and  to  Dr.  Worcester,  but  they  knew  also  that  they 
were  unknown  to  the  greater  part  of  laymen.  Hence  they 
hare  both  of  them,  Dr.  Worcester  full  as  much  as  the 
others,  attempted  to  fix  upon  all  that  portion  of  the  clergy, 
who  are  not  satisfied  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  all 
the  opinions  maintained  by  Socinus  or  Mr.  Belsham,  though 
they  knew  the  greater  part  were  Arians.  I  say  distinctly, 
they  must  have  known  that  these  facts  were  unknown  to 
the  great  mass  of  readers,  and  I  am  afraid  that  they  were 
not  unwilling  that  they  should  be  led  into  errour. 

The  Arians  have  the  most  elevated  ideas  of  Jesus  Christ. 
They  consider  him  as  a  being  pre-existent  to  his  appear- 
ance on  earth  ;  that  he  came  down  from  heaven.  Many  of 
them  believe  that  he  had  an  agency  in  the  formation  of  this 
world.  In  this  manner  they  reconcile  some  texts  of  scrip- 
ture which  seem  to  give  to  the  Messiah  this  exalted 
character. 

The  Socinians  on  the  other  hand  consider  him  as  an 
inspired  prophet,  but  purely  human  in  his  origin. 

There  is  a  third  class,  whom  Dr.  Worcester  ought  to 
have  known,  because  his  liberal  and  pious  brother  is  at  the 
head  of  them  ;  (a  man,  who  for  his  ingenuousness  and  gene- 
rous sacrifice  of  himself  in  the  cause  of  what  he  believed 
the  truth,  is  worthy  of  all  praise,)  who  hold 'a  third  opinion  ; 
and  that  is,  that  our  Saviour,  though  not  a  part  of  the  God- 
head, is  veritably  the  Son  of  God. 

It  is  not  within  our  scope  to  discuss  the  merits  of  either 
of  these  opinions,  but  we  do  say,  that,  knowing  these  distinc- 
tions to  exist,  it  was  very  little  short  of  culpable  unfairness, 
both  in  the  editors  of  the  Review  and  Dr.  Worcester,  to 
affect  to  confound  them. 


OR  A  CALVINIST-?  2S 

It  is  then  my  design  to  shew, 

Firstly.  That  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Belsham  are  in 
fact  imputed  so  generally,  and  witii  such  purposed  vague- 
ness, to  those  the  orthodox  call  the  liberal  party,  as  to  lead 
all  honest  laymen,  unacquainted  with.these  distinctions  (that 
is,  ninety-nine  in  an  hundred)  to  believe,  that  all  Unitarians 
agree  in  all  points  with  Mr.  Belsham. 

Secondly.  That  the  Review  does  charge  the  ministers, 
who  doubt  the  doctrine;of  the  Trinity,  generally,  with  base 
and  hypocritical  concealment  of  their  opinions. 

Thirdly.  I  shall  shew,  that  Dr.  W  orcester  himself  is 
under  a  great  mistake,  or  has  been  guilty  of  a  still  greater 
degree  of  misrepresentation,  in  regard  to  the  preaching  and 
course  of  conduct  of  what  he  calls  the  liberal  clergy. 

I  would  observe  here,  before  I  cite  my  proofs,  that  it  is  as 
unfair  in  these  gentlemen,  to  attempt  to  fix  on  all  Unitarians 
every  opinion  which  any  one  of  them  professes,  as  it  would 
be  to  fix  on  all  Trinitarians  the  doctrines  professed  by  any 
of  them. 

Yet  Dr.  Worcester,  by  a  course  of  reasoning,  if  it  can 
be  dignified  with  that  name,  affects  to  do  this. 

He  chooses  to  consider  all  the  Unitarians  as  one  party. 
He  must  have  known  it  to  be  otherwise.  This  was  not  in 
of  our  view  decorous  in  a  man  of  his  profession. 

In  page  10  he  says,  "if  among  the  liberal  party  such 
"  things  are  done,  if  some  do  mutilate  the  New  Testament 
"  &c.  if  of  the  rest  some  more  and  others  less  directly  con- 
"  sent  to  these  things,  if  as  a  party  or  as  individuals  of  the 
"  party  they  bear  no  decided  testimony  against  these  deeds, 
•*  and  do  nothing  to  purge  themselves  from  the  guilt  of 
"  them,  then  is  it  not  true  to  say  of  the  party  generally 
"  that  they  do  these  things  ?  and  will  they  not  generally 
"  with  all  who  adhere  to  them  be  held  to  answer  for  then" 
"  at  the  bar  of  the  righteous  Judge  V 


24 


ARE   YOU   A    CHRISTIAN 


God  forbid  that  Dr.  Worcester,  if  such  are  his  sentiments, 
should  ever  be  promoted  to  the  office  of  a  temporal  or  spiri- 
tual judge.  A  million  of  men  entertain  one  opinion  in  common. 
Nine  hundred  and  ninety  thousand  of  them  hold  an  opinion 
perfectly  innocent,  but  ten  thousand  of  them  also  maintain 
(lie  most  censurable  doctrines.  The  point  in  which  they 
are  agreed  is  either  true  or  harmless.  I  would  impute,  says 
the  humane  Dr.  Worcester,  to  the  nine  hundred  and  ninety 
thousand,  the  detestable  doctrines  of  the  ten  thousand,  which 
they  reprobate  equally  with  the  rest  of  the  world. 

This  is  imputation  with  a  vengeance  ! 

Let  us,  however,  test  the  fairness  of  this  reasoning  and 
the  justice  of  this  accusation  by  an  application  to  them. 

So  far  as  it  respects  this  particular  point  in  the  nature  of 
God,  the  christian  world  are  divided  into  two  sects  only, 
Trinitarians  and  Unitarians. 

The  former  term  embraces  Catholicks,  Lutherans,  Cal- 
vinists,  and  these  again  are  subdivided  into  fifty  sects. 

The  latter  are  divided  into  ArianS,  Socjnians,  and  many 
who  differ  from  both. 

Now  is  it  not  as  reasonable  to  say  to  a  Calvinistick 
Trinitarian,  "  Your  Trinitarian  party  (meaning  the  Catho- 
licks) maintain  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  of  abso- 
lution, of  auricular  confession.  You  are  therefore  accoun- 
table for  these  opinions." 

How  unfair  would  Dr.  Worcester  deem  it,  if  we  should 
impute  to  every  Trinitarian  every  absurd  opinion  maintained 
by  those  who  agree  with  him  in  that  doctrine. 

Yet  on  this  very  flimsy  ground,  and  on  this  alone,  does 
he  impute  to  Mr.  Channing  and  the  other  clergy,  who  hold 
the  simple  doctrine  of  the  Unity  of  the  supreme  Being, 
opinions,  which  he  considers  the  most  heinous  crimes,  which 
in  his  judgment  will  condemn  them  to  eternal  punishment, 
and  which  merit  the  severest  human  censure. 


OR   A  CALVINISTP 


3S& 


I  would  remark  in  this  place,  that  although  I  would  here 
establish  the  iliiberality  and  misrepresentation  of  the  editors 
of  the  Panoplist,  it  is  not  because  I  consider  it  a  reproach 
to  any  man,  honestly  to  entertain  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Bel- 
sham.  In  most  of  the  opinions  cited  by  the  Panoplist  I 
agree  with  that  Unitarian  divine.  In  some  I  differ  from 
him  ;  and  however  it  may  please  the  apostolick  Dr. 
Worcester  to  denounce  such  opinions  as  gtiilt,  I  shall  ask 
for  his  commission  from  my  Maker  and  my  Saviour  before 
I  shall  allow  the  validity  of  his  decree. 

Yes.  Though  a  layman,  I  understand  and  value  my 
religious  rights,  and  in  my  conscience  I  have  believed  ever 
since  I  have  had  understanding  to  discern  the  truth,  that 
the  greater  part  of  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Calvinism  are 
derogatory  to  God,  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  doctrines 
taught  by  our  Master  ;  and  though  I  can  never  call  errour 
guilt,  I  shall  always  esteem  the  Calvinistick  errours  the 
most  unfortunate  and  dishonourable  to  the  christian  system, 
of  any  which  the  metaphysical  subtlety  of  men  has  contri- 
ved, or  which  their  pride  and  party  spirit  have  induced 
them  to  maintain.  But  although  I  consider  it  no  reproach, 
yet  both  Dr.  Worcester  and  I  well  know,  that  on  many  of 
the  points  in  question,  a  great  portion  of  the  Unitarians  of 
this  country  differ  as  much  from  Mr.  Belsham  as  they  do 
from  Dr.  Worcester,  and  in  this  view  the  charge  was  not 
only  unfounded  but  extremely  unfair. 

I  can  easily  fancy,  that  I  see  these  metaphysical  dicta- 
tors of  our  consciences  sneering  at  a  layman,  who  has  the 
hardihood  to  give  his  opinion  about  doctrines  which  they 
will  say  he  does  not  understand.  How  can  you,  Sir,  they 
will  say,  pretend  to  decide  on  some  of  the  most  abstruse 
points  in  theology,  which  it  costs  us  the  whole  labour  of  our 
lives  to  endeavour  to  comprehend,  and  even  that  endeavour 
is  with  many  of  us  unsuccessful  ?  Such  will  be  the  private, 

4 


2C  ARE  YOU   A  CHRISTIAN 

if  it  be  not  the  publick  language  of  these  inspired  teachers. 
Yet  they  hoid  very  consistently  at  the  same  time,  that 
though  we  laymen  cannot  understand  the  merits  of  these 
questions  without  much  study,  though  it  cost  the  metaphy- 
sical and  able  Dr.  Edwards  the  labour  of  a  life  to  display 
them,  yet  that  every  illiterate  man  is  bound  to  believe  them 
on  pain  of  eternal  damnation.* 

Never  was  a  doctrine  so  well  calculated  to  keep  the  minds 
of  men  in  fetters  to  ecclesiastical  authority.  You  must  be- 
lieve because  it  is  incredible  ;  the  more  incomprehensible, 
the  more  certain  its  divine  origin  and  its  truth.  "  But  I  do 
not  understand  even  the  terms  of  the  proposition."  So 
much  the  better ;  it  is  a  proof  the  mystery  is  deeper  and 
more  holy,  and  so  much  the  greater  your  obligation  to 
believe. 

Hence  it  is,  we  suppose,  that  some  of  these  Calvinistick 
gentlemen  hold  human  research  in  such  contempt,  and  aban- 
don the  pain  and  labour  of  study  to  their  industrious  oppo- 
sers,  to  the  seekers  after  truth,  the  humble  inquirers  after 
the  religion  which  Jesus  taught.  Hence  it  is,  we  suppose, 
that  we  sometimes  see  them  so  devoted  to  worldly  inte- 
rests, to  the  publication  of  profane  books  (I  use  profane  in 
contradistinction  to  sacred)  as  to  render  it  impracticable 
for  them  to  devote  any  reasonable  portion  of  time  to  theo- 
logical research.      To  such  men,  to  all  who  are  greedy  of 

*  Q.  Where  are  true  churchmen  to  be  found  ? 
A.  Only  in  the  true  church. 
Q,.  How  do  you  call  the  true  church  ? 
JV.  The  holy  catholick  church. 
Q.  Is  there  any  other  true  church  ? 

A.  No.  As  there  is  but  one  Lord,  one  faith,  one  baptism,  one 
God  and  Father  of  all,  there  is  but  one  church. 
Q.  Are  all  obliged  to  be  of  the  true  church  ? 
A.  Yes,  no  one  can  be  saved  out  of  it. 
The   above   questions  and  answers  are  extracted,   not  from  Dr. 
Worcester,   but   from   the  eighth  edition  of  the  general  catechism, 
printed  at  Dublin,  1811,  and  revised,  enlarged,  approved  and  recom- 
mended, not  by  the  editors  of  the  Panoplist, — but  by  the  four  Roman 
Calholick  archbistiops  of  the  kingdom  of  Ireland. 


OR  A  CALVINIST?  27 

sovereign  power  over  the  minds  of  their  people,  these  Cal- 
vinistick  doctrines  are  very  convenient.  They  teach  their 
flocks,  that  human  reason  is  to  be  discarded  in  judging  of 
sacred  things,  that  it  was  given  us  only  for  our  every  day 
affairs,  but  that  in  things  which  pertain  to  our  immortal 
souls,  and  which  affect  our  eternal  happiness,  it  is  an  in- 
strument to  be  dreaded,  a  faculty  to  be  despised.* 

Hence  they  lay  down  the  Westminster  Assembly's  con- 
fession of  faith  as  the  gospel,  and  by  the  aid  of  a  few  texts, 
they  are  enabled  to  compose  what  they  are  pleased  to 
style  an  evangelical  discourse  ;  though  its  resemblance  to 
the  New  Testament  is  perhaps  its  slightest  recommendation. 
If  a  sober,  pious,  inquiring  parishioner  should  ask  them 
to  explain  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  the  nature  and 
character  and  offices  of  each  member  of  this  singular  Union, 
and  what  was  its  state  when  our  Saviour  was  in  the  tomb 
and  before  his  resurrection  ;  if  they  should  ask,  what  Christ 
could  mean  by  praying  to  his  Father,  that  the  bitter  cup  of 
suffering  might  pass  from  him,  whether  he  prayed  when  he 
knew  it  was  in  vain,  and  whether  he  prayed  to  himself 
who  was  equally  God  with  the  Father  ;  to  all  these  ques- 
tions the  only  reply  would  be,  it  is  a  mystery.  We  know 
no  more  about  it  than  you.  But  if  you  do  not  believe  it 
you  will  be  damned,  and  the  editors  of  the  Panoplist  and 
Dr.  Worcester  will  sit  in  judgment  upon  you. 

The  poor  man,  if  his  mind  is  feeble  and  his  spirit  very 
obedient,  trembles  and  obeys ;  we  cannot  say  believes,  for 
belief  cannot  be  affirmed  of  any  thing  which  is  not  clearly 
and  fully  understood. 

Far  different  and  more  arduous  is  the  task  of  those  pas- 
tors and  teachers,  who  hold  their  hearers  1o  be  reasonable 
creatures,  and  that  the  noblest  faculty  which  God  has  given 

*  "  When  once  the  doctrine  is  adopted,  that  reason  is  not  to  be 
exercised  in  matters  of  religion,  it  becomes  almost  a  point  of  duty  to 
be  as  unreasonable  as  possible."— Christian  Observer,  May,  181 5,  p.  276. 


gfj  ARE    YOU    A    CHRISTIAN 

to  man,   is   to  be  employed   about    the   noblest  and   most 
sublime  subject. 

These  teachers  consider  it  to  be  their  duty,  to  give  to 
every  man  the  "reason  of  the  faith"  that  is  in  them. 

They  esteem  it  a  sacred  obligation  to  search  the  scrip- 
tures, to  compare  all  human  systems  with  them,  and  to  adopt 
these  only  so  far,  as  after  fair  and  honest  and  pious  research 
they  shall  find  them  supported  by  the  Bible. 

Hence  these  teachers  have  a  much  more  laborious  task, 
than  those  who  blindly  follow  Calvin,  or  any  maker  of 
creeds.  They  would  consider  it  a  profanation  of  the  desk 
to  preach  doctrines  which  they  themselves  could  not  under- 
stand. Their  sermons,  instead  of  resembling  the  treatises  of 
metaphysical  divines,  are  modelled  upon  that  of  our  Saviour 
on  the  mount.  They  think  his  example  of  sufficient  authority. 
In  the  beautiful  language  of  Mr.  Channing,  "  we  esteem 
"  it  a  solemn  duty  to  disarm  instead  of  exciting  the  bad 
"  passions  of  our  people.  We  wish  to  promote  among  them 
"  a  spirit  of  universal  charity.  We  wish  to  make  them  con- 
"  demn  their  own  bad  practices  rather  than  the  erroneous 
"  speculations  of  their  neighbour.  We  love  them  too  sin- 
"  cerely  to  imbue  them  with  the  spirit  of  controversy." 
This  is  as  true  as  it  is  christian-Iike  and  sublime.  We  all 
know  that  this  is  their  mode  of  preaching,  and  these  their 
motives. 

I  mean  now  to  shew, 

1st.  That  the  sentiments  of  Mr.  Belsham  are  in  fact 
in  the  Panoplist  imputed  so  generally,  and  with  such  purpo- 
sed vagueness  to  those  whom  the  orthodox  call  the  liberal 
party,  as  to  lead  all  honest  laymen,  ignorant  of  the  distinc- 
tion between  Ihe  various  sects,  to  believe,  that  all  Unitari- 
ans agree  in  all  points  with  Mr.  Belsham. 

In  the  first  place,  I  adopt  their  own  course  of  reasoning, 
as  against  themselves.     Both  the  Panoplist  and  Dr.  Wor- 


OR  A  CALVINISTP  29 

cester  contend,  that  all  the  Unitarians  are  to  be  considered 
as  one  parti/,  an^  are  responsible  for  the  opinions  and  even 
crimes  which  any  of  the  party  commit. 

In  page  6,  having  quoted  at  large  Mr.  Belsham's  opinions, 
the  editors  of  the  Panoplist  add,  "  the  foregoing  quotations 
are  sufficient  to  give  the  reader  some  acquaintance  with  the 
religious  opinions  of  leading  Unitarians." 

The  evidence  only  went  to  shew  the  opinion  of  one  Uni- 
tarian. The  Panoplist  cites  it  as  proof  of  the  opinion  of 
more  than  one  of  the  leading  Unitarians.  Just  below  in 
the  same  page  their  courage  gains  ground,  and  they  pro- 
ceed without  qualification  in  the  work  of  misrepresentation. 
"  Our  readers  (say  they)  will  excuse  us,  if  for  the  sake 
of  making  a  brief  summary  of  doctrines  held  by  Unitarians 
as  exhibited  in  the  preceding  extracts,  we  give  the  sub- 
stance of  the  several  articles  by  way  of  recapitulation." 

"  Unitarians  hold  and  teach  then,  That  God,"  &c.  Sec. 
here  inserting  Mr.  Belsham's  creed. 

This  in  common  acceptation,  is  an  insinuation,  that  all 
Unitarians  hold  those  opinions.  Here  they  dropped  the 
word  "  leading." 

The  sarcastick,  triumphant  manner  in  which  the  whole 
subject  is  introduced,  the  course  of  argument  adopted, 
such  as  that  they  had  secretly  known,  and  had  often  advised 
the  publick  of  what  the  Boston  ministers  had  studiously 
concealed,  that  they  were  at  bottom  Unitarians,  though  they 
artfully  concealed  it  from  their  parishes  and  the  world,  but 
that  happily  for  the  cause  of  truth,  they  had  discovered 
the  means  of  bringing  this  more  than  popish  plot  to  light  ; 
all  this  course  of  statement,  as  it  is  applied  to  the  Boston 
and  other  clergy  of  the  liberal  party  generally,  without  any 
discrimination,  was  intended  to  convey,  and  does  convey 
to  the  mind  of  every  reader,  that  they  considered  it  appli- 
cable to  all.      It  was  purposely  vague,  that  the  suspicion 


30  ARE  YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

might  fall  upon  the  whole.  Mr.  Channing  has  disappointed 
them.  He  has  proved  that  a  part  of  what  they  would  im- 
pute to  him  as  guilt,  he  claims  as  merit,  and  that  the 
insinuation,  the  innuendo,  that  all  the  liberal  clergy  hold  the 
opinions  of  Mr.  Belsham,  is  false. 

Do  these  gentlemen  believe,  that  in  order  to  convict  them 
of  a  libel,  it  is  necessary  they  should  use  a  precise  form  of 
words  ?  Do  they  believe,  they  can  make  insinuations  in  lan- 
guage purposely  obscure,  and  when  put  upon  their  trial, 
escape  ou  the  ground  of  literal  variation  ? 

What  will  be  said  to  this  phrase  ? 

"  Such  is  the  Unitarianism  which  Mr.  Belsham  wishes  to 
propagate,  and  of  which  he  professes  to  write  the  history, 
so  far  at  least  as  it  relates  to  its  progress  in  this  country. 
Of  the  existence  of  such  Unitarianism  in  the  metropolis 
of  New-England,  our  readers  have  been  generally  well  per- 
suaded, but  some  have  not  believed  that  it  was  making  con- 
siderable progress,  because  they  could  not  persuade  them- 
selves that  men,  occupying  important  places  in  church  and 
state,  and  standing  high  in  publick  estimation,  were  capable 
of  concealing  their  true  sentiments." 

I  do  not  know  that  Dr.  Worcester  might  not  attempt  to 
prove  that  the  foregoing  sentence  did  not  contain  any  charge, 
since  he  could  not  see  even  in  the  Panoplist  a  charge  of 
hypocrisy  against  the  Boston  clergy,  but  I  understand  the 
above  to  be  an  averment,  that  such  Unitarianism  as  Mr. 
Belsham  wished  to  propagate,  and  contained  in  the  summa- 
ry above  cited  by  the  Panoplist,  was  the  same  with  that 
held  by  all  the  men  in  church  and  state  in  Massachusetts, 
(who  were  Unitarians  at  all)  and  that  they  concealed,  from 
a  sense  of  guilt  and  shame,  their  opinions  from  the  publick. 

Such  any  fair  jury  would  say  was  the  meaning  of  the 
sentence.  Such  Mr.  Channing  thought  it  to  be,  and  supposed 
it  included  him  and  his  brethren.     Such  it  was  intended  to 


OR  A  CALVINIST?  ^ 

be,  as  I  shall  prove,  and  such  Dr.  Worcester  ought  to  have 
supposed  to  be  its  meaning. 

In  the  2d  page  of  the  Panoplist  Review  the  term  Boston 
"  and  its  vicinity"  is  used  in  such  a  manner  as  fairly  to 
bear  out  Mr.  Channing's  inference.  Nay,  it  would  lead 
foreigners,  and  citizens  unacquainted  with  the  facts,  to  con- 
sider the  whole  town  and  vicinity  Unitarians  of  Mr.  Bel- 
sham's  sort. 

So  much  so,  that  if  any  Boston  minister,  however  ortho- 
dox, should  travel  without  a  passport  from  the  faithful,  he 
would  be  in  danger  of  being  confounded  with  the  hereticks. 
"  The  pamphlet  before  us  (say  the  editors)  furnishes 
most  decisive  evidence  on  the  subject  of  the  stale  of  reli- 
gion in  Boston  and  the  vicinity.  It  is  evidence  which  can 
neither  be  evaded  or  resisted  by  the  liberal  party:' 

We  now  introduce  one  of  the  passages  quoted  by  Mr. 
Channing.  «  We  shall  feel  ourselves  (say  the  Reviewers) 
warranted  hereafter  in  saying  that  Unitarianism  is  the  pre- 
dominant religion  among  the  ministers  and  churches  of 
Boston." 

On  this  sentence  the  Rev.  Dr.  Worcester  with  wonderful 
shrewdness  remarks,  1st.  that  this  does  not  include  the 
vicinity.  But  the  other  one  I  quoted  above,  did.  2d.  It 
did  not  include  the  "great  body  of  liberal  christians:' 
But  it  included  the  ministers  of  Boston  and  their  churches  ; 
nay,  its  fair  signification  is,  that  the  greater  part  of  all  the 
churches  were  Unitarians,  and  the  sentence  I  have  quoted 
did  include  the  liberal  party.  And,  3dly,  he  says,  it  does 
not  say  that  they  were  Unitarians  in  "Belsham's  sense  of 
the  word." 

But  I  have  shown  above,  that  in  many  other  passages  to 
the  American  Unitarians  generally  are  imputed  Belsham's 
opinions  ;  so  then,  if  in  any  one  sentence  all  the  proposi, 
tions  cannot  be  found,  our  metaphysical  divine  cannot  find 


gg  ARE  YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

the  assertion  supported.  To  such  a  mind  we  can  readily 
forgive  any  errours  founded  on  metaphysical  or  scholaslick 
subtleties.  There  is  one  other  evasion  which  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Worcester  invents  for  the  word  predominant,  which  I  notice 
for  other  purposes.  He  says  that  it  might  have  meant  pre- 
dominant in  "  influence,"  having  the  "  most  prominent 
characters"  for  supporters.  There  are  two  sentences  in 
which  this  word  is  used  by  the  Reviewer.  The  other  one 
is,  "  We  feel  entirely  warranted  in  saying,  that  the  pre- 
dominant religion  of  the  liberal  party  is  decidedly  Unitarian 
in  Mr.  Belsham's  sen~e  of  the  word."  Is  there  a  man  of 
plain  *ense  who  believes  that  the  Reviewers  meant  thence 
simply  to  assert  that  the  men  of  influence,  the  men  who  have 
the  care  of  the  college,  alone,  were  Unitarians  in  Mr.  Bel- 
sham's  sense  of  the  word,  or  did  they  mean  that  it  was  the 
prevailing  sentiment,  the  sentiment  of  the  greatest  number  ? 
Surely  the  latter  is  the  fair  construction  ;  but  this  construc- 
tion was  introduced,  I  fear,  for  the  purpose  for  which,  in  too 
many  orthodox  publications,  the  same  sentiment  is  inserted, 
to  play  off  the  passions  and  jealousies  of  the  uninformed 
classes  of  citizens  against  the  higher.  Gentlemen,  you  take 
this  course  frequently.  You  are  provoked  that  so  vast  a  pro- 
portion of  the  opulent,  well-informed  classes  of  society  are 
scriptural  christians,  and  reject  the  creeds  of  the  dark  ages, 
the  shreds  and  patches  left  upon  our  religion  by  the  first 
reformers,  and  you  wish  to  render  them  objects  of  jealousy. 
You  may  succeed  in  this  game.  You  have,  we  well  know, 
the  long  end  of  the  lever.  The  multitude  will  finally  govern  ; 
but  recollect,  that  in  pulling  down  scriptural  Christianity, 
in  revenging  yourselves  upon  us  for  rejecting  your  authority 
and  preferring  that  of  Christ,  you  run  some  hazard  of  being 
pulled  down  yourselves.  Some  of  the  best  friends,  and  the 
most  staunch  supporters  of  Christianity  are  among  those 
whom  you  attack.     Infidelity  is  the  prevailing  profession  of 


OR   A  CALVINIST?  33 

the  statesmen  of  the  south.  The  populace  in  times  of 
turbulence  soon  pass  from  orthodoxy  and  fanaticism  to  incre- 
dulity, and  you  may  regret  too  late,  that  you  alienated  the 
affections  of  those  who  were  Avilling  and  able  to  aid  and 
sustain  you,  while  you  lost  your  influence  with  the  other 
classes.  I  shall  say  something  more  on  the  causes  of  the 
late  unusual  awakening  and  zeal,  and  this  dreadful  appre- 
hension of  danger  to  the  church,  in  the  close.  I  shall  sug- 
gest some  of  the  true  sources  of  this  clamour,  and  shall 
render  it  probable,  that  if  two  or  three  turbulent  and  in- 
triguing men  had  not  been  encouraged,  the  harmony  of  the 
church  would  not  have  been  interrupted.  To  return  to  our 
question. 

The  best  proof  and  the  conclusive  one  against  the  Pano- 
plist  editors,  is  the  judgment  which  they  pass  on  themselves. 
Their  conscience  smote  them,  and  it  is  astonishing  to  me 
that  Dr.  Worcester  did  not  see  that  his  defence  was  offi- 
cious. They  never  mean  to  deny,  and  they  never  can 
deny,  that  they  imputed  to  the  whole  liberal  party,  in  town 
and  out  of  town,  men  of  influence  and  men  without  it,  min- 
isters and  people,  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Belsham.  In  page 
27  they  say,  they  are  aware  they  shall  be  accused  of  unfair- 
ness in  imputing  to  the  liberal  party  "  the  extravagant 
opinions  of  Mr.  Belsham."  But  they  justify  it.  They  go 
on  to  argue  on  the  honourable  nature  of  Mr.  Wells'  stand- 
ing and  character,  and  his  consequent  authority. 

This  is  a  perfect  admission,  not  that  they  were  unfair,  but 
that  they  did  so  impute  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Belsham  to 
the  liberal  party. 

Now  what  have  we  proved  that  the  Panoplist  asserted  1 

1st.  That  Mr.  Belsham's  opinions  are  those  of  "  leading 
Unitarians." 

2d.  That  they  are  the  opinions  of  "  Unitarians"  without 
qualification. 

5 


^4  ARE   YOU  A   CHRISTIAN 

3d.  That  "  Unitarians"  hold  all  the  opinions  which  the 
Panoplist  selects  from  Mr.  Belsham's  creed. 

4th.  That  the  Unitarianism  which  has  been  secretly 
spreading  in  Boston,  and  of  which  they  had  often  warned 
their  readers,  that  which  was  held  by  men  distinguished  in 
church  and  state  was  "  such  Unitarianism"  as  Mr. 
Belsham's. 

5th.  That  Mr.  Belsham's  book  applies  to  the  "state  of 
religion  in  Boston  and  its  vicinity." 

6th.  That  Unitarianism  (which  we  have  shewn  they  had 
before  defined  to  be  Mr.  Belsham's)  was  the  predominant 
religion  of  the  ministers  and  churches  of  Boston. 

7th.    That  the  predominant  religion  of  the  liberal  party 
is  decidedly  Unitarian  in  Mr.  Belsham's  sense  of  the  word. 
And  lastly,  they  implicitly  admit,  that  they  did  charge  the 
liberal  party  with  holding  Mr.  Belsham's  opinions,  and  jus- 
tify it. 

Let  us  now  see,  whether  the  whole  of  Mr.  Channing's 
assertion  in  his  first  proposition,  and  especially  the  one  I 
advanced,  is  not  supported ;  viz.  that  the  Panoplist  asserts, 
that  the  ministers  of  this  town  and  its  vicinity,  and  the  great 
body  of  liberal  christians,  are  Unitarians  in  Mr.  Belsham's 
sense  of  the  word. 

Dr.  Worcester  not  only  has  failed  to  defend  them  suc- 
cessfully on  this  point,  but  he  has  most  unhappily  plunged 
himself  into  the  same  difficulty,  by  justifying  in  one  line  what 
he  denied  to  exist  in  a  preceding  one. 

It  is  where  he  defends  this  malicious  sentence  of  the 
Panoplist,  "  the  liberal  party  mutilate  the  New-Testament, 
reject  nearly  all  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  gospel, 
and  degrade  the  Saviour  to  the  condition  of  a  fallible,  pec- 
cable, and  ignorant  man." 

Dr.  Worcester  first  attempts  to  shew,  that  it  does  not 
mean  the  whole  party  ;  that  the  whole  is  sometimes  used  for 


OR  A  €ALVINIST?  35 

.a  part,  that  it  was  therefore  wrong  in  Mr.  Channing  to  apply 
it  to  all  of  them.  He  has  scarcely  finished  this  piece  of 
fine  reasoning,  before  he  proceeds  In  three  long  pages  to 
shew,  that  every  one  of  the  party  are  liable  for  the  deeds 
of  every  other  one  !  That  the  Reviewers  had  a  right  to 
consider  Belsham's  opinions  as  applying  to  all  Unitari- 
ans since  he  spoke  in  the  name  of  all  ;  thus  the  doctor  ex- 
hibits a  new  species  of  reasoning.  He  denies  a  fact,  sup- 
ports his  denial  with  much  argument,  and  then  proceeds  to 
justify  that  fact  as  an  acknowledged  and  admitted  one. 

The  Calvinists  certainly  will  do  us  a  favour  by  selecting 
Dr.  Worcester  as  their  advocate,  but  we  sincerely  rejoice 
that  he  is  not  on  our  side  of  the  question  :  we  could  not 
stand  such  a  defence,  though  we  fear  no  attack  from  any 
quarter. 

The  second  point  is,  "  Did  the  Reviewers  in  the  Pano- 
plist  charge  the  clergy  or  ministers,  who  doubt  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  with  base  and  hypocritical  concealment  of 
their  opinions  ?" 

Here  Dr.  Worcester  is  a  little  more  cautious.  He  deals 
in  general  denial,  he  brings  forward  but  one  passage,  which 
I  shall  examine  :  But  he  does  make  one  or  two  assertions 
that  astonish  me.  One  is,  that  of  all  the  quotations  made 
by  Mr.  Channing,  he  thinks  "he  may  safely  assert  there  is 
not  one  sentence  or  scrap  of  a  sentence  which  appears  in 
the  letter  of  Mr.  Channing,  with  the  same  aspect  and 
bearing  as  in  the  Review."  This  charge,  if  true,  goes 
deeply  to  the  moral  character  of  Mr.  Channing;  but  it  is 
utterly  unfounded. 

It  will  appear  to  be  one  of  the  most  singular  mistakes  or 
misrepresentations  by  clerk  or  layman.  It  is  distressing  to 
be  obliged  to  apply  such  expressions  to  a  divine,  but  if  a 
man  will  fight  with  poisoned  arrows,  he  must  expect  to  be 
treated  as  out  of  the  pale  of  civilized  warfare.     The  fact? 


36  ARE   YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

I  am  now  about  to  state,  and  the  exposition  which  I  am 
about  to  present,  wilLbe  thought  to  bear  still  harder  on  the 
fairness  of  Dr.  Worcester  as  a  theological  combatant. 

If  that  reverend  gentleman  intended,  in  the  manner  of 
some  of  the  subtleties  I  have  so  fully  detected  above,  to 
justify  his  assertion  by  saying,  that  after  these  sentences 
and  scraps  of  sentences  were  transferred  to  Mr.  Channing's 
letter,  they  did  not  stand  in  the  same  typographical  order 
or  relation  to  each  other,  and  to  the  context  in  the  Pano- 
plist,  let  him  enjoy  his  triumph,  such  as  it  would  be. 
But  if  he  meant,  as  he  did,  to  convey  the  idea,  that  those 
sentences,  and  parts  of  sentences,  were  not  correctly  appl  ed 
by  Mr.  Channing,  I  shall  prove  it  to  be  otherwise. 

The  "aspect  and  bearing,''  and  the  only  "  aspect  and 
bearing"  which  they  have  in  Mr.  Channing's  letter,  are 
expressed  in  three  short  words,  "  We  are  accused  ;"  and  if 
we  examine  the  text  which  was  the  occasion  of  introducing 
this  note,  we  shall  find,  that  the  persons  to  whom  Mr.  Chan- 
ning refers  as  accused,  are  the  ministers  of  Boston  and  the 
vicinity,  and  others  of  the  liberal  party.  Now  if  the  minis- 
ters of  Boston  are  distinctly  accused  of  all  the  things  stated 
in  the  extracts,  then  the  aspect  and  bearing  are  the  same 
in  Mr.  Channing's  letter  as  in  the  Review,  for  they  are  a 
part  of  the  persons  accused,  and  a  part  stand  for  the  whole. 
See  Dr.  Worcester  and  the  Panoplist  passim. 

We  are  accused,  says  Mr.  Channing,  of  the  "  syste- 
matical practice  of  artifice."  In  page  2d  of  the  new  edition 
of  the  Review,  there  is  the  paragraph  cited  below.  I  shall 
in  every  instance  give  the  whole  context  in  order  to  convict 
the  reverend  Dr.  the  more  fully.  After  asserting  that  the 
editors  of  the  Panoplist  had  long  known  and  often  apprized 
the  christian  world  of  this  dark  secret,  Unitarian  defection, 
they  say,  "  But  as  the  work  of  errour  was  carried  on  for 
the  most  part  in  secret,  as  many  well-meaning  people  were 


5R   A  CALVINIST?  37 

led  in  the  dark,  and  as  proselytes  were  made  principally 
by  suppressing  truth,  rather  than  by  explicitly  proposing 
and  defending  errour,  it  was  a  difficult  matter  so  to  expose 
the  evil,  as  to  present  its  character,  extent  and  design  in 
full  view,  before  the  eyes  of  its  friends  and  enemies."  [Here 
follows  the  clause  selected  by  Mr.  Channing.]  "  It  has 
"  been  an  artifice  practised  systematically  by  a  majority 
"  of  the  clergymen  who  have  led  the  way  in  this  apostasy 
"  from  the  faith  of  the  Protestant  churches,  and  (as  we 
"  believe  we  may  safely  add)  in  this  apostasy  from  chris- 
"  tianity,  to  inculcate  the  opinion,  that  they  did  not  differ 
"  materially  from  their  clerical  brethren  through  the  coun- 
"  try." 

Now  we  ask  whether  the  words,  "  artifice  practised  syste- 
matically," taken  in  connexion  with  the  rest  of  the  Pano- 
plist  and  with  the  contrast  of  the  word  country,  do  not 
apply  to  the  Boston  clergy.  Whether  they  are  not  as  clear 
as  if  they  had  named  Lathrop  and  Channing,  and  Thacher, 
'  and  others  ?  There  are  but  two  evasions  I  can  think  of. 
One  is,  that  Mr.  Channing  says,  "  we  are  accused  of  the 
systematical  practice  of  artifice,"  and  the  Review  only  says, 
(*  an  artifice  practised  systematically." 

To  be  sure,  laymen  would  call  this  a  quibble,  but  as 
it  is  in  character  with  some  other  parts  of  Dr.  Worcester's 
letter,  and  as  it  is  on  such  verbal  niceties  that  many  of  the 
Calvinistick  errours  repose,  I  should  not  be  surprised  to 
see  him  resort  to  it. 

It  may  also  be  said,  that  the  Reviewers  do  not  accuse  all 
the  Boston  clergy,  nor  even  all  who  have  led  the  way  in  this 
pretended  apostasy ;  neither  does  Mr.  Channing  say  they 
did.  He  only  says,  "  we  are  accused,"  and  surely  all  the 
Anti-Trinitarian  clergymen  are  accused,  except  Dr.  Free- 
man, who  is  praised,  and  who  alone  is  praised,  for  his 
openness. 


38  ARE   YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

Case  2d.  We  are  accused,  says  Mr.  Channing,  of  "hy- 
pocritical concealment."  In  the  first  place,  in  page  7,  new 
edition,  the  Panoplist  says,  that  their  readers  had  long  been 
apprized  of  the  existence  of  such  Unitarianism  (which  I 
have  proved  to  be  Belsham's)  in  the  metropolis  of  New- 
England,  (this  fixes  the  locality)  "  but  some  have  not  be- 
lieved (they  add)  that  it  was  making  considerable  progress, 
because  they  could  not  persuade  themselves  that  men, 
occupying  important  places  in  church  and  state,  and  stand- 
ing high  in  publick  estimation,  were  capable  of  concealing 
their  true  sentiments."  This  is  only,  I  admit,  very  broad 
insinuation,  but  it  serves  to  connect  other  charges,  by  shew- 
ing that  they  were  designed  to  apply  to  the  Boston  clergy. 
I  dare  say  the  doctor  would  justify  this  species  of  calum- 
ny, by  saying,  that  it  makes  no  assertion. 

In  page  10,  the  Reviewers  say,  that  Belsham  has  shewn 
us,  not  that  he  has  merely  asserted  it,  "that  many  of  his 
order  in  our  country  would  have  one  Veligion  for  the  vulgar 
and  another  for  the  wise,  that  it  is  a  fundamental  maxim 
among  the  great  body  of  leading  Unitarians  here  not  to 
expose  their  sentiments  directly  to  the  inspection  of  the 
world  at  large,  and  to  challenge  investigation,  but  to 
operate  in  secret." 

I  introduce  this  to  shew  the  same  general  design,  and 
also  that  the  charge  is  made  against  the  whole  body. 

All  these  extracts  are  produced  as  introductory  to  the 
following  in  page  11,  speaking  of  the  society  in  Tremont 
street  (King's  chapel.)  We  must  say  (say  the  Review- 
ers) that  the  conduct  of  this  society  and  of  their  minister, 
in  coming  out  openly  and  avowing  their  sentiments  to  the 
world,  is  vastly  preferable  to  an  hypocritical  concealment 
of  them. 

This  is  a  slander  by  innuendo.  It  means  that  other  socie- 
ties did  hypocritically  conceal.     But  the  Rev.  Dr.  Wor- 


OR  A  CALVINIST?  S§ 

cester  triumphs  here.  He  says,  there  is  not  a  direct  charge, 
He  quotes  it  as  far  as  I  have  now  done  ;  but  who  will  ever 
believe  without  consulting  the  book,  that  this  divine,  who 
charges  his  brother  Channing  with  mutilation,  took  this  ex- 
tract and  left  the  words  which  immediately  follow  ?  "  Had 
other  societies  followed  their  example,  we  should  long  since 
have  known  with  whom  we  were  contending,  and  not  have 
been  obliged  to  guard  against  ambushes  instead  of  combat- 
ing in  the  open  field."  Which  those  other  societies  were, 
is  made  known  by  the  above  extracts  from  pages  7  and  10, 
and  from  the  whole  tenour  of  the  Review.  The  other 
societies  in  Boston,  who  are  not  Trinitarian  in  their  senti- 
ments, are  then  charged  with  "  hypocritical  concealment," 
and  a  fortiori  their  pastors  are  so  charged,  who  are  more 
than  ten  times  distinctly  noticed  in  the  Review. 

Case  3d.  We  are  accused  of  "  cowardice  in  the  con- 
cealment of  our  opinions,"  "  of  cunning  and  dishonesty," 
"  of  acting  in  a  base  hypocritical  manner,  a  manner  at  which 
common  honesty  revolts  ;"  "  a  manner  incompatible  with 
fidelity  and  integrity." 

I  put  all  these  distinct  cases  together,  because  they  are 
supported  by  the  same  evidence. 

Speaking  ot  Mr.  Wells's  letter,  page  20,  the  Reviewers 
say,  that  his  apology  for  his  cautious  brethren,  sufficiently 
indicates  his  views  of  their  conduct  in  regard  to  their  pub- 
lick  teaching.  This  shews  of  whom  they  considered  him 
to  be  speaking,  that  they  were  ministers,  publick  teachers. 
They  then  proceed,  "  Thus  it  is,  and  thus  it  has  been  for 
years.  Knowing  that  the  cold  skepticism  of  Socinianism 
cannot  satisfy  the  wants  nor  alleviate  the  woes  of  plain 
common  sense  people,  its  advocates  in  general  have  not 
dared  to  be  open,  (here  is  the  cowardice.)  They  have  clan- 
destinely crept  into  orthodox  churches  by  forbearing  to 
Contradict  their  faith,  (this  shews  who  are  intended— that  it 


40  ARE   YOU   A  CHRISTIAN 

is  the  clergy)  and  then  gradually  moulded  them  by  their 
negative  preaching,  to  the  shape  they  would  wish."  In 
the  same  paragraph  and  in  the  same  allusion,  again,  "  Who 
does  not.  see  that  there  is  great  cunning,  and  that  there  is 
great  policy  in  all  this.  [Here  the  charge  of  cunning  is 
advanced.]  "  But  then,  the  honesty  !  That  is  another 
matter.  Did  the  holy  apostles  act  in  this  manner  when 
they  preached  to  Jews  and  heathens  1  Did  they  teach  by 
negatives  ?  [This  shews  they  mean  the  persons  above 
referred  to.]  Let  those  blush,  who  profess  to  follow  the 
apostles,  and  yet  behave  in  this  base,  hypocritical  manner. 
Common  honesty  revolts  at  it.  The  idea,  that  a  minister 
believes  the  truths  of  the  gospel  to  be  of  infinite  importance, 
and  still  conceals  them,  is  incompatible  either  with  fidelity 
or  integrity." 

It  makes  one  blush,  to  feel  obliged  to  prove  so  self-evi- 
dent a  proposition,  as  that  these  charges  were  made  against 
Mr.  Channing  and  the  Boston  clergy.  It  makes  us  blush 
still  deeper,  to  find  any  persons  with  the  christian  name 
capable  of  writing  such  language  ;  and  we  shudder  when  we 
perceive  that  any  man  could  affect  to  doubt  their  intended 
application. 

But  if  Dr.  Worcester  had  confined  himself  simply  to  a 
denial  of  the  charge,  if  he  had  even  gone  no  farther  than  to 
charge  Mr.  Channing  with  false  and  unfair  quotations,  he 
would  not  have  sunk  so  much  in  our  esteem.  But  there  is 
an  affectation  of  fairness,  and  of  sentiment,  and  tenderness, 
which  doubles  his  condemnation.  He  says,  that  when  he 
read  these  extracts  in  Mr.  Channing's  letter,  he  was  excited 
in  regard  to  the  Reviewer,  [meaning  that  he  felt  angry]  and 
iie  was  surprised,  that  he  had  not  felt  the  same  excitement 
when  he  first  read  them  in  the  Review.  This  is  a  stroke 
of  art,  first,  to  make  the  reader  believe  his  candour,  and 
that  he  should  have  felt  very  indignant  at  such  charges  ; 


OR  A  CALVIMST?  41 

secondly,  To  heighten  the  belief,  that  the  passages  in  their 
natural  connexion  bore  no  such  meaning. 

Now  what  shall  we  say,  when  we  see  that  they  have  the 
same  aspect  and  bearing  in  the  Review,  as  Mr.  Channing 
stated  them  to  have  ? — That  his  assertion  was  strictly,  lite- 
rally, and  technically  true,  true  in  the  most  rigid  construc- 
tion of  law  and  language,  true  to  learned  and  true  to  vulgar 
apprehension  in  the  hidden  and  the  obvious  meaning  ? 

But  this  is  not  the  worst  of  the  case  for  Dr.  Worcester. 
He  stands  self-accused.  By  saying,  that  he  felt  excited,  or 
angry,  at  the  accusations  of  the  Panoplist  as  stated  by  Mr. 
Channing,  he  implicitly  admits  them  to  be  calumnies,  rea- 
sonable causes  of  offence  ;  and  yet  this  very  consistent  de- 
fender, who  felt  abhorrent  at  such  suggestions,  and  denies 
that  the  Panoplist  made  those  charges,  in  the  aspect  and! 
bearing  stated  by  Mr.  Channing,  advances  in  substance  the 
same  charges,  and  seems  astonished  that  Mr.  Channing 
should  have  felt  indignant  at  them.  Let  us  furnish  our 
proofs. 

In  page  17  he  attempts  to  shew,  that  the  same  charges 
of  hypocritical  concealment  are  true,  he  first  cites  the 
authority  of  Mr.  Freeman,  Mr.  Wells,  and  Mr.  Belsham, 
and  then  adds,  "  you  must  be  apprised  that  the  opinion 
[that  they  concealed  their  sentiments,  and  temporized]  was 
very  extensively  prevalent,  prevalent  not  only  among  your 
adversaries,  but  also  among  your  friends.  Hundreds  and 
hundreds  of  times  have  I  heard  it  from  various  quarters,  and 
never  have  I  heard,  as  I  recollect,  the  truth  of  it  denied  or 
called  in  question." 

Again.      "  I  did   suppose,   that  you  and   your  liberal 
brethren  held  it  as  a  maxim,  that  a  degree  of  reserve  and 
concealment,  greater  or  less  according  to  circumstances,  was 
prudent,  and  justifiable,  and  praiseworthy.'* 
6 


42  ARE  YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

And  pray,  if  Dr.  Worcester  believed  all  this  of  them,  it 
he  really  thought  them  hypocrites  and  afraid  to  avow  their 
opinions,  why  was  he  excited  against  the  Panoplist,  when 
he  saw  the  charges  collected  by  Mr.  Channing  1 

Will  he  say,  that  he  did  not  look  upon  concealment  a& 
any  offence,  or  any  breach  of  duty  I  He  goes  on  to  de- 
scribe this  failure  of  openness  to  be  the  greatest  degree  of 
infidelity  to  God  and  Christ. 

1  shall  now  say  a  word  or  two  on  the  third  proposition^ 
that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Worcester  has  either  mistaken  or  mis- 
represented the  course  of  preaching,  which  Mr.  Channing 
stated,  and  most  clearly  stated,  to  be  that  of  himself  and 
friends.  Dr.  Worcester,  in  page  22,  chooses  to  understand 
Mr.  Channing  as  saying,  that  he  did  not  introduce  any  great 
controversial  points  into  his  discourses. 

Mr.  Channing* s  words,  cited  at  length,  and  not  garbled 
and  mutilated,  have  a  very  different  "aspect and  bearing." 
"  As  to  that  very  small  part  of  our  hearers,  says  he,  who 
are  attached  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  while  we  have 
not  wished  to  conceal  from  them  our  difference  of  opinion, 
we  have  been  fully  satisfied,  that  the  most  effectual  method 
of  promoting  their  holiness  and  salvation,  was  to  urge  on 
them  those  great  truths  and  precepts  about  which  there  is 
little  contention,  and  which  have  an  immediate  bearing  on 
the  temper  and  life." 

A  more  delightful  and  rational  rule  could  not,  one  would 
think,  be  adopted. 

What  is  Dr.  Worcester's  course  as  to  this  sentence?  He 
says,  There  has  been  great  contention  about  all  the  great 
truths  of  Christianity,  and  therefore  against  the  positive  de- 
claration of  Mr.  Channing,  that  he  does  urge  certain  great 
truths  of  the  gospel,  Dr.  Worcester  makes  the  following, 
enumeration.  "  The  doctrines  concerning  the  Saviour's- 
person  and  character,  his  priesthood  and  atonement,   his 


OR  A  CALVINIST?  43 

offices  and  work;  the  doctrines  concerning  the  moral  stale 
of  mankind,  regeneration  by  the  holy  spirit,  justification  by 
faith,  pardon  and  eternal  salvation  through  the  merits  of  the 
one  Mediator,  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  and  the  final 
judgment,  "  the  everlasting  destruction  of  those  that  obey 
not  the  gospel,"  are  subjects  of  continual  and  earnest  con- 
tention among  those  who  profess  themselves  christians. 
These,  doctrines  then,  according  to  your  own  representation, 
you  and  your  liberal  brethren  refrain  from  bringing  into  dis- 
cussion before  your  hearers." 

This  is  the  last  and  worst  quotation  I  shall  make  from 
Dr.  Worcester.  He  affects  to  believe,  that  Mr.  Channing 
admitted,  that  he  never  preached  concerning  the  person, 
character  and  works  of  our  Saviour,  nor  the  moral  state  of 
mankind,  nor  the  doctrines  of  pardon,  nor  eternal  salvation, 
nor  the  resurrection,  nor  the  final  judgment ! !  ! 

Did  he  believe  it  to  be  so  ?  Even  charity  can  scarcely 
admit  it.  Such  a  course  of  argument  would  merit  a  fine 
or  degradation  in  a  Sophomore,  but  in  a  minister  of  Christ, 
what  are  we  to  say  of  it  ?  Is  it  to  be  understood,  that  the 
orthodox  clergy  generally  approve  of  measures,  at  which  all 
men  of  sentiment  revolt  ? 

I  can  only  say,  that  if  any  religion  or  any  doctrines  per- 
mit or  allow  of  such  proceedings,  it  is  a  sufiicient  reason  for 
rejecting  them. 

Our  disposition  to  fairness  induces  us  to  say,  that  we 
have  no  doubt  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Worcester  had,  in  the 
passage  to  which  we  refer,  a  mental  reservation,  which 
entirely  reconciled  this  representation  of  Mr.  Channing's 
preaching  to  his  own  conscience.  It  is  however  melan- 
choly to  reflect,  that  theological  controvertists  often 
have  recourse  to  measures,  which  appear  to  laymen 
who  consider  a  God  of  truth  as  an  enemy  to  subterfuge, 
very  improper.      The  doctor  will  doubtless  say,    "have 


44  ARE  YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

there  not  been  .violent  contentions  as  to  the  "nature, 
"  extent,  and  degree  of  future  punishments,  and  the  time 
"  and  manner  of  final  judgment  ?  Had  I  not  a  meta- 
"  physical  and  abstract  right  then  to  say,  though  I  did  not 
"  believe,  that  Mr.  Channing  omitted  these  points  ?"  I 
answer  without  hesitation.  No,  Sir,  you  had  no  right  to 
make  an  inference  which  you  did  not  believe  to  be  true. 
Neither  you,  nor  any  man  in  Christendom  could  believe,  that 
the  Boston  clergy  omit  to  urge  on  their  hearers  the  doc- 
trines of  final  judgment,  and  punishment.  You  might  pre- 
sume from  what  Mr. Channing  said,  that  they  did  not  enter  on 
this  doctrine  of  purgatory,  and  the  specifick  nature,  extent 
and  duration  of  punishments  at  the  last  day,  but  neither  you 
nor  any  one  of  your  brethren,  ever  believed  that  they  refrain- 
ed from  teaching  their  hearers,  that  there  would  be  a  day  of 
final  judgment,  in  which  men  would  receive  a  sentence 
according  to  their  deeds. 

If  the  liberal  clergy  have  not  arrayed  the  Deity  in  all  the 
terrours  which  suit  the  gloomy  imaginations  of  some  men, 
they  have  not  been  wanting  in  representing  him  as  a  just 
being,  delighting  in  the  virtue  of  his  creatures,  and  justly 
offended  with  their  vices,  and  that  his  rewards  and  punish- 
ments would  be  proportional  to  their  conduct  in  this  life. 
God  grant,  that  at  that  solemn  day,  all  those  who  have  been 
so  forward  in  censuring  others  may  be  able  to  render  as 
good  an  account  of  their  stewardship,  as  those  whom  they 
have  rashly  accused. 

I  have  now  completed  the  design  which  I  had  originally 
in  view-;  which  was,  to  place  in  alto  relievo,  in  a  prominent 
light,  the  calumnies  of  the  editors  of  the  Panoplist.  I  am 
not  certain  that  those  gentlemen  will  not  thank  us,  for  proviug 
their  true  meaning  and  design  against  the  defence  of  Dr. 
Worcester. 


OR  A  CALVINISM?  45 

I  shall  make  a  few  remarks  on  various  miscellaneous 
heads,  all  connected  with  this  grand  bill  of  presentment, 
which  the  exclusive  saints  have  made  against  the  great 
body  of  herelicks,  called  liberal  christians,  before  that 
venerable  tribunal,  the  mob,  in  a  language  and  temper  just 
suited  to  their  court, 

THE      MOTIVE      FOR     THIS     ATTACK    OF     THE     PANOPLIST, 
AND    ITS    CONSISTENCY. 

That  in  a  free  country  every  man  has  a  right  to  address 
the  people  on  any  topick,  which  he  may  think  useful,  can- 
not be  questioned.  He  has  a  strict  legal  right  also  to  mani- 
fest in  himself  a  most  diabolical,  revengeful  temper,  and  he 
can  escape  punishment,  if  he  will  make  his  accusations  so 
vague,  as  that  no  individual  can  prove  himself  dis- 
tinctly charged  with  a  moral  or  legal  offence.  As  in  our 
country  it  is  no  crime  and  scarcely  a  disgrace,  to  entertain 
opinions  on  religious  subjects  differing  from  the  majority, 
so  there  is  no  remedy,  when  any  malicious  writer  shall 
under  cover  of  the  press,  charge  persons  with  opinions 
which  they  do  not  profess,  or  misrepresent  and  mistake 
those  which  they  do.  But  though  such  slanderers  can 
escape  what  they  deserve,  without  question,  judicial  punish- 
ment, yet  there  are  tribunals  of  a  higher  kind,  both  human 
and  divine,  which  they  never  will  escape. 

There  is  a  moral  court,  erected  in  the  breasts  of  all  men 
of  common  honesty,  to  which  they  are  answerable.  To  this 
court  I  appeal,  in  behalf  of  those  venerated  men,  who  have 
been  shamefully  abused. 

What  authority  has  Dr.  Morse,  or  Dr.  Worcester,  or  Mr. 
Evarts,  or  any  body  else,  over  Mr.  Channing,  and  Mr. 
Thacher,  and  Mr.  Lowell,  and  their  parishioners  ?  Is  there 
any  ecclesiastical  power  in  our  State  confided  to  them,  when 
both  pastor  and  people  agree  ?  We  know  there  is  not.    But 


46  ARE  YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

it  is  urged,  that  on  so  solemn  a  subject  the  duty  of  apostles 
is  paramount  to  human  laws,  and  that  St.  Morse,  St.  Evarts. 
and  St.  Worcester,  reinvested  with  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  descended  on  St.  Paul  and  St.  Peter,  are 
bound  to  mount  the  apostolick  chair  and  excommunicate  the 
hereticks.  Grant  it.  It  may  soon  be  too  dangerous  to 
deny  the  authority  of  these  apostles.  But  it  must  be  ad- 
mitted, that  the  glory  of  God  and  the  advancement  of  true 
religion  ought  to  be  not  only  the  motive,  but  the  end 
proposed. 

It  appears  to  me  then  that  the  editors  of  the  Panoplist 
Review  most  apparently  had  neither. 

In  the  first  place,  its  temper  is  so  bitter,  so  full  of  sarcasm 
and  levity,  that  it  could  not  have  proceeded  from  a  pure 
desire  to  promote  the  cause  of  Christ. 

In  the  second  place,  it  was  'inconsistent;  for  if  these 
Anti-Trinitarian  clergymen  had  been  so  ashamed  or/  afraid 
of  their  opinions,  as  to  conceal  them  studiously  from  their 
parishes,  as  the  Panoplist  contends,  the  doctrines  could 
spread  but  very  slowly,  and  it  was  a  proof,  that  those  who 
held  them  were  not  eager  to  make  proselytes. 

It  seems  to  shew  at  least,  what  Mr.  Channing  asserts, 
that  though  their  researches  led  them  to  reject  the  Calvinis- 
lick  doctrine,  they  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  direct 
their  publick  instructions  against  these  specifick  errours ; 
as  not  involving  questions  essential,  however  important. 
Now  to  attack  these  gentlemen,  who,  as  the  Reviewers 
allege,  studiously  concealed  their  opinions  ;  to  attempt  to 
create  a  popular  impression,  that  their  forbearance  on  these 
controverted  points  is  a  heinous  crime,  and  thus  lay  men  of 
their  learning  and  talents  under  the  necessity  of  defending 
(heir  alleged  heresy,  and  shewing  it  to  be  the  real  gospel, 
could  not  fail  to  extend  the  opinions,  which,  according  to 
these  accusers  of    he  brethren,  ought  to  be  reprobated  and 


OR  A  CALVINIST?  AX 

dreaded ;  and  it  shews,  that  every  thing  but  truth  was  the 
object  those  zealots  for  orthodoxy. 

The  gentlemen  of   this    school    talk  much    about  their 
openness.     They  would  have  it  believed,  that  they  are  as. 
much  more  disinterested  and  honest  in  religion,  than  the 
class  of  temperate   theologians,  as  they  are  more  forward, 
and  dogmatical,  and  denouncing.       This  is    claiming   too 
much  in  all  reason,  considering   how  many  interested  and 
natural,  if  not  criminal  feelings,  may  be  gratified  by  this 
vaunted    openness.      I  have   no   doubt,   there   are   in  the 
ranks  of  the  party,  persons  of  amiable  or  timid  character, 
whom  it  costs  some  struggle   with   their  disposition,  and 
perhaps  their  conviction,  to  dogmatize  and  rail  at  the  bitter 
rate  demanded  by  the  leaders  and  whippers  in  of  the  sect. 
But  with  respect  to  others,  especially  of  the   prominent 
sort,  the  sacrifice  would  be  in  suppressing,  rather   than  in 
publishing  their  peculiar  creed.     Shall  partisans  and  cham- 
pions of  a  creed  and  sect,   who  claim    exclusive    posses- 
sion  of  the     truth,   who  think    the    distinctions   between 
themselves    and  others    essential,   who  are  able  to  avenge 
themselves  in  this  world  on  those  who  dissent  from  them, 
by   holding  them  forth   to  the   multitude,  and  fixing    the 
brand  of  heresy  upon   them,  and  who  profess  to  expect  to 
be  avenged  by  the  final  Judge  at  the  last  day,  think  much 
of  raising  their  standard,  and  boast  of  their  openness  ?  Hav- 
ing a  majority  in  numbers  at  least  with  them,  deriving  con- 
sideration and  influence,  places  in  publick  seminaries,  and 
pulpits,  from  their  sectarian  peculiarities,  it  does  not  seem 
to  require  any  great  portion  of  the  spirit  of  martyrdom  to 
proclaim  their  faith  most  loudly. 

A    SMALL    BLUNDER    OF    THE    fANOPLIST. 

The  truth  will  somtimes  force  its  war  through  lips  the 
least  disposed  to  its  utterance.  Take  for  example  this 
unfortunate  sentence  of  the  Panoplist. 


48  ARE   YOU  A  CHRISTIAN" 

Speaking  of  the  Anti-Trinitarian,  or  scriptural  clergy, 
who,  as  they  pretend,  have  gradually  by  "  negative  preach- 
ing," (I  use  their  verv  words)  moulded  their  people  to  the 
shape  they  would  wish,"  [a  pretty  singular  mode,  it  must  be 
admitted,  of  moulding  men's  minds  by  negative  preaching,] 

They  add, 

"  The  people  after  a  while,  (by  the  means  of  this  nega- 
tive preaching,  which  means  silence  as  you  will  see)  never 
hearing  of  atonement,  nor  of  special  grace,  or  the  kindred 
doctrines,  forget  that  they  belong  to  the  christian  system, 
and  by  and  by  regard  as  a  kind  of  enthusiast  or  monster  a 
man  who  preaches  these  doctrines."  These  are  the  very 
words  in  their  true  bearing. 

Is  this  the  Panoplist  ?  Do  my  eyes  deceive  me  ?  Your 
effemies  never  said  any  thing  so  bad  of  those  doctrines. 
"  The  liberal  clergy  creep  silently  into  orthodox  churches, 
"  preach  negatively  (that  is,  are  silent)  on  certain  contro- 
"  verted  points,  the  good  seed  is  soon  lost,  and  simply  by 
"  not  hearing  these  doctrines,  for  some  time,  (that  is,  "  after 
"  a  while'')  when  they  hear  them  anew  they  are  shocked 
"  at  them,  and  consider  the  man  who  utters  them  a  mon- 
"  ster  !  !  !" 

God  forbid  that  your  doctrines  should  be  so  bad,  gentle 
men.     God  forbid  that  you  should   denounce  such  men  as 
Charming,  for  disbelieving  doctrines,  which,  you  say,  even 
orthodox  churches,  after  a  short  interruption,  receive  with 
horrour  and  disgust. 

I  do  not  cite  this  as  affording  a  triumph.     It  is  a  noble  sen 
iitnent  and  true.    It  is  a  generous  and  ingenuous  confession. 

I  declare  to  you,  honestly,  as  a  layman,  there  is  nothing, 
as  you  justly  observe,  that  so  soon  bristles  my  hair  with 
Horrour  as  some  of  the  doctrines  maintained  by  the  orthodox 


OR  A  CALVINIST  ?  49 


THE  REMARK  OF  THE  PANOPLIST,  SO  TRULY   APOSTOLICK, 
THAT    THE    "  UNITARIANS    PRAISE    ONE    ANOTHER." 

I  do  not  wonder  that  they  are  so  partial  to  this  sally  of 
wit,  it  has  all  the  qualities  of  this  production  of  Altica,  ex- 
cept brevity.  It  is  so  rare  a  quality  too  among  the 
orthodox  !  and  it  is  so  precisely  suited  to  the  solemnity 
and  awful  nature  of  such  a  subject ! 

I  was  convinced,  last  summer,  when  the  same  writer 
caught  this  idea,  and  run  it  down  through  several  octavo 
pages,  that  he  valued  it  too  much  to  let  it  sink  into  oblivion. 
I  had  no  doubt,  that,  like  the  murdered  Starrett,  it  would 
"  re-appear."  I  am  not  mistaken  ;  and  much  as  I  pity  the 
temper  of  the  editors  of  the  Panoplist,  I  have  yet  so  much 
of  a  christian  spirit,  that  I  would  not  willingly  deprive  them 
of  the  pleasure  of  repeating  this  truly  Attick  jest  every 
year,  if  I  did  not  owe  something  to  truth. 

It  is  admitted,  that  certain  men  who  agree  in  denying  the 
truth  or  the  importance  of  a  particular  dogma,  and  in  the 
excellence  of  a  catholick  spirit,  do  praise  one  another. 

To  make  this  a  reproach,  (and  if  it  is  not  a  reproach  it 
should  not  have  been  introduced,  for  it  cannot  be  believed 
that  on  so  solemn  a  question,  as  that  of  the  Unity  of  the 
supreme  God,  orthodox  men  would  indulge  in  ridicule  and 
levity,  and  wit,)  if  it  be  a  serious  reproach,  it  should  have 
been  accompanied  with  the  proof,  that  the  persons  charged 
denied  this  praise  to  others,  or  that  those  who  were  praised, 
were  undeserving  of  it. 

I  do  not  see  that  any  due  praise  is  withheld  from  the 
orthodox  party.  I  presume  they  do  not  expect  us  to  allow 
that  the  superiour  learning,  or  fairness,  or  candour  of 
some,  whom  they  put  forward,  is  the  ground  of  their  selec- 
tion. Full  credit  is  given  by  us  to  the  learning  and  cha- 
racter of  the  Calvinists.  They  do  not,  I  conceive,  insist, 
7 


j0  ARE   YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

that  their  peculiar  sentiments  shall  be  acknowledged  as  the 
result  of  their  pre-eminent  spirit  of  research,  or  acquaint- 
ance with  sacred  literature  ;  neither  can  we  feel  obliged  to 
consider  their  intolerance  and  censoriousness  the  effect  of 
their  piety  and  benevolence.  I  think  it  quite  enough  in 
favour  of  the  best  of  those  persons,  who  promote  division, 
and  awaken  hateful  passions  against  honest  men  for  being 
honest,  and  preferring  the  Bible  to  a  formula,  to  allow  their 
anathematizing  spirit  to  be  consistent  with  virtue,  but  not 
to  be  a  part  of  it.  With  regard  to  others,  they  cannot 
claim  more  charity  than  they  give. 

As  to  learning,  we  do  not  deny  the  metaphysical  powers 
of  Edwards  and  Hopkins,  and  the  ingenuity  of  Dr.  Em- 
mons ;  and  do  not  dispute  the  reputed  or  known  abilities 
of  the  Andover  professors — but  that  critical  learning,  which 
is  applicable  to  the  interpretation  of  the  scriptures,  and  that 
literature,  which  serves  to  illustrate  and  adorn  religious  and 
moral  truth,  as  is  well  known,  has  been  in  very  little  repute 
among  the  high  Calvinists  in  this  part  of  the  countiy.  A 
regard  to  the  credit  and  influence  of  the  sect,  and  the  effect 
of  their  institution,  is  doubtless  causing  a  change  in  this 
respect,  and  will  probably  cause  an  abatement  of  their 
bigotry.  On  the  other  hand,  will  it  be  denied  that  the 
praise  bestowed  on  the  Unitarians  is  well  deserved  ?  Will 
any  man  question  the  personal  virtue  of  such  men  as  La- 
throp,  Channing,  Thacher,  and  the  great  body  of  the  liberal 
clergy  ? 

Our  country  is  too  much  given  to  self-commendation  I 
admit. ~  But  when  the  orthodox  shall  produce  such  works 
as  the  writings  of  Belknap,  or  the  sermons  of  Clarke,  and 
Buckrninster,  and  Freeman,  and  so  much  learning  as  is 
found  in  Everett's  answer  to  English,  we  will  admit  that 
they  are  as  much  entitled  to  praise.  At  present  we  cannot 
compare  Morse's  Geographical  works,  or  his  sermons,  such 


©R   A  GALVINIST?  £1 

as  we  have  seen  of  them,  or  even   Dr.  Worcester's  letter, 
with   those   respectable   productions  of  our  country. 

But  as  to  this  habit  of  praising  one  another,  you  are  ex- 
tremely disingenuous  in  not  feeling  and  acknowledging  the 
motive.  It  is  to  bear  up  these  victims  of  your  vengeance 
against  your  slanders,  that  such  things  are  said.  You  are 
the  majority.  With  all  the  insolence  of  conscious  strength, 
and  with  the  malignity  of  enemies,  you  are  assailing,  not  their 
opinions  and  christian  standing  only,  but  their  probity  in 
the  discharge  of  their  function  ;  and  when  a  friend  is  indu- 
ced by  your  calumnies  to  speak  of  them  with  respect, 
you  call  it  praise. 

How  consistent  is  this  course  in  men,  who  arrogate  to 
themselves  en  masse  all  the  Christianity  and  all  the  virtue 
in  the  country  ! !  How  consistent  in  men,  who  sometimes 
promote  to  offices  of  the  highest  honour  those  whom  they 
themselves  despise,  and  whom  the  publick  have  long  since 
condemned.  Let  us  then  hear  no  more  on  the  subject  of  the 
self  praise  of  the  Unitarians,  until  you  are  prepared  to 
shew  that  it  is  ill-deserved.  I  can  see  no  reason  why  I 
should  not  praise  a  learned  man,  because  he  happens  to 
agree  with  me,  in  a  doctrine,  upon  which  men  of  sense,  in  all 
ages,  where  there  was  freedom  of  opinion,  have  been  found 
prone  io  agree. 

HARVARD    COLLEGE. 

A  large  proportion  of  the  Review  in  the  Panoplist  is  de- 
voted to  an  attempt  to  render  odious  the  officers  of  this 
institution,  and  to  withdraw  from  it  the  confidence  of  the 
publick.  Aware,  however,  of  the  hold  it  has  upon  the  affec- 
tions of  the  people,  they  have  thought  it  necessary  to  pro- 
fess a  regard  for  it. 

This  is,  in  truth,  rather  suspicious.  The  reputed  editors 
of  the  Panoplist,  and  authors  of  the  Review,  are  Alumni  of 


52  ARE  YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

other  colleges,  and  one  or  more  of  them  sent  into  this  state, 
for  the  purpose  of  punishing  and  pursuing  the  college  for 
refusing  to  become  sectarian.  It  is  remarkable,  that  almost, 
all  the  sons  of  our  Alma  Mater  should  be  so  outdone  in  filial 
respect  and  tenderness  by  these  strangers,  whom  she 
never  knew  !  This  foreign  patriotism,  however  popular 
in  our  country,  is  attended  with  some  inconveniences.  I 
wish  these  volunteers  in  supplying  the  defects  of  our  mother's 
own  children,  had  a  little  different  way  of  shewing  their 
regard.  They  love  her  so  well,  that  if  she  will  only  give 
herself  up  to  their  views,  and  cease  to  consider  the  peculiar 
dogmas  of  their  creed  as  subjects  of  inquiry  and  discussion, 
but  will  declare  them  to  be  first  principles,  and  suffer  no 
liberty  upon  these  points  to  any  of  her  officers,  they  will 
admit,  that  she  is  as  great  a  blessing  to  the  publick,  as  she 
was  in  good  old  times  !  These  generous  keepers  of  their 
neighbour's  vineyard  would  have  it  thought,  that  there  is  a 
ereat  change  in  the  theological  character  of  the  college,  that 
is,  of  its  superintendents  and  officers,  within  the  last  twenty 
years.  Every  one  knows,  that  for  sixty  years,  at  least, 
this  institution  has  been  distinguished  as  the  temperate  re- 
gion of  theology  ;  that  the  five  points,  and  other  points  of 
violent  theorists  and  zealots  for  orthodoxy,  have  never  been 
inculcated,  and  that  the  Calvinists  and  Hopkinsians  have 
always  considered  Harvard  College  as  a  place,  where  a  man, 
instructer  or  pupil,  might  refuse  to  wear  their  badges  with- 
out any  forfeiture  of  reputation  or  influence. 

The  Panoplist  editors  and  Reviewers  admit,  that  the  col- 
lege has  been,  in  many  points  of  view,  the  pride  and  glory 
of  our  western  world.  Its  excellent  benefactors  they  allow 
to  have  been  pious  men,  and  they  agree,  that  it  has  been 
the  nursery  of  a  long  and  illustrious  train  of  civil  and  reli- 
gious characters.  But  they  omit  to  state,  that  the  liberal 
Hollises  are  amongst  its  benefactors  ;  that  Mr.  Adams,  the 


OR   A  CALVINIST?  53 

president  of  the  United  States,  and  Gore,  and  Parsons,  and 
Ames,  and  a  multitude  of  others,  who  are  its  present,  or 
have  been  its  late  supporters,  are  ranked  in  the  class  of 
liberal  christians.  They  omit  to  state,  that  Clarke,  and 
Belknap,  and  Osgood,  and  Porter,  and  Kirkland,  and  Chan- 
ning,  and  Buckminster,  and  Thacher,  and  Norton,  and 
Everett,  and  others  are  among  its  pupils,  who  have  been 
more  distinguished  than  almost  any  who  preceded  them. 

They  say,  we  shall  resort  to  a  clamour,  that  the  interests 
of  learning  are  in  danger.  We  shall  take  no  such  course. 
We  say  that  all  the  charges  against  our  Alma  Mater  are 
false.  That  true  religion,  pure  and  unadulterated  Chris- 
tianity, is  the  great  object  of  her  pursuit.  She  maintains, 
that  Christianity  can  be  well  understood  and  firmly  sup- 
ported only  by  diligent,  and  fair,  and  impartial  inquiry. 

The  college  was  originally  devoted  to  "  Christ  and  the 
church,"  and  at  no  period  of  its  history  did  the  Christian 
religion  engage  there  so  large  a  proportion  of  academick 
instruction. 

At  the  present  day,  the  study  of  the  christian  religion 
forms  the  most  prominent  part.  There  is,  however,  no 
attempt  to  disseminate  Unitarian  or  any  other  sectarian 
principles.  The  minds  of  the  youth  are  left  to  the  opera- 
tion of  free  inquiry.  The  books  which  are  taught,  Butler, 
and  Paley,  and  Grotius,  are  the  works  of  men  eminent 
for  their  piety,  and  read  and  approved  in  orthodox  semi- 
naries. 

The  Reviewers  speak  of  the  munificent  founders  of 
ancient  times.  The  whole  records  of  the  University  can- 
not furnish  an  example  of  such  a  donation,  as  the  late  noble 
endowment  for  a  professorship  of  Greek  ;  one  of  the  main 
objects  of  which  is  to  aid  in  the  critical  examination  of  the 
holy  scriptures. 


£4  ARE  YOU   A  CHRISTIAN 

The  donation  of  the  Hon.  Mr.  Dexter,  a  man  of  en- 
lightened mind,  and  pious  affections,  for  the  promotion  of 
(he  study  of  Biblical  criticism,  is  also  almost  unexampled 
in  past  times.  Of  the  same  character,  and  meriting  equal 
applause,  is  the  donation  of  Mr.  Parkman  for  a  foundation 
of  a  new  theological  professorship. 

The  gossiping  tales,  about  the  prayers  on  publick  occa- 
sions, are  worthy  of  the  cause  which  they  are  introduced 
to  sustain.  It  would  be  unworthy  of  the  defender  of  the 
most  noble  institution  in  America,  to  descend  to  reply  to 
them. 

ONE    WORD    ABOUT    THE    CONTROVERSY  WHICH    HAS    PRO- 
DUCED   THIS    DISCUSSION. 

It  would  be  unpardonable  in  a  layman  to  leave  this  ques- 
tion here.  He  ought  to  recollect  the  time,  when  these 
scholastick  disputes  were  as  little  familiar  to  himself,  as 
they  generally  are  fb  the  great  body  of  laymen  throughout 
our  country. 

The  opponents  of  true  Christianity  and  free  inquiry 
iave  chosen  to  deal  in  general  terms,  and  they  rely  on  gen- 
eral denunciations  rather  than  on  reasoning.  They  raise 
the  cry  of  heretick  and  infidel,  because  they  hope  it  will 
be  as  effectual,  as  that  of  "  church  and  king"  in  England. 

But  they  must  not  be  permitted  to  remain  under  the 
almost  impenetrable  cover  of  their  mysteries  and  their 
watch-words. 

If  our  doctrines  are  heretical,  let  it  be  known.  If  they 
are  scriptural,  let  them  be  defended. 

I  rejoice  in  this  occasion,  as  it  will  compel  our  clergy- 
men to  expose  the  errours,  which  their  aversion  to  contro- 
versy has  induced  them  to  spare.  The  great  point  which 
has  given  occasion  to  this  libel  is,  that  many  of  our  divines^ 


OR  A   CALVINISTJ  55 

•after  deliberate  research,  do   not  find  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  in    the    holy  scriptures.     They   do  not  believe, 
that  the  great   Jehovah  hath  any  copartners  in  his  power. 
They  do  not  believe,  that  the  great  God  himself  dwelt  upon 
the  earth  in  human  shape,  and  was  buffeted  and  put  to  death 
by  men.     They  believe  in  the  Divinity,  or  divine  mission, 
though  not  in  the  Deity  of  Christ.     They  believe,  that  the 
Son  was  what   he  declared  himself  to   be,  inferiour   to  the 
Father  ;  that  the  works  which  he  wrought,  were    those  of 
God  who  sent  him.     Whilst   the  subordination  and  depen- 
dence of  the  Son  appear  to  them  undoubted,  they  agree  in 
the   most  noble  and  exalted  ideas   of  the   Saviour.     They 
desire  to  honour  him  in  all  the  offices  he  is  represented  to 
sustain  in  behalf  of  mankind,  and  believe  and  acknowledge 
all  respecting  his  nature   and  rank,  which   the  scriptures, 
upon  examination,  are  found  to  teach.     They  differ  from 
each  other  in  their  conceptions  on  this  point,  as  the  Trini- 
tarians   do  in    their  definitions  ;  but  they    consider,    that 
these  differences,  being  such  as  may  perfectly  consist  with 
the  love  of  truth,  ought  not  to  be  a  ground  of  denying  each 
other's  Christianity. 

As  to  the  general  doctrine  of  the  inferiority  and  deriva- 
tion of  the  Son,  they  think  it  every-where  taught  in  the 
New  Testament,  and  necessarily  inferred  from  innumerable 
passages.  But  this  their  adherence  to  scriptural  religion, 
and  what  they  suppose  declared  in  Christ's  gospel,  is  re- 
garded as  a  crime,  unless  they  also  believe  in  it,  as  explain- 
ed and  delivered  in  words  of  man's  device,  by  certain 
ecclesiasticks,  transported  by  the  rage  of  controversy,  who 
lived  three  hundred  years  after  the  death  of  the  Saviour, 
and  in  following  periods. 

Besides  the  obscure  or  contradictory  statements  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  which  the  Calvinists  would  have  us 
believe,  there  are  other  points,   for  doubting  which  our 


M  ARE  YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

teachers  are  anathematized,  and  we  their  hearers  are  en- 
joined to  renounce  them ;  which  points  I  think  it  would  be 
well  should  be  laid  open.  It  is  really  important  to  know 
whether  the  scriptures  teach  such  doctrines  as  these  scho- 
lastic^ divines  pretend  ;  because  if  they  do,  we  must 
review  the  evidences  of  the  sacred  book,  and  see  if  it  be 
possible,  that  a  good  and  just  God  can  have  made  such  a 
revelation. 

We  must  believe,  they  say,  the  imputation  of  the  sin  of 
Adam  ;  according,  however,  to  the  last  edition  of  the  doc- 
trine. (For  these  gentlemen,  who  call  us  infidels,  for  not 
taking  our  creed  as  laid  down  by  the  reformers,  with  whom 
this  doctrine  did  not  come  into  dispute,  or  the  Westminster 
divines,  have  taken  the  liberty  for  themselves  to  new  model 
this  article,)  we  must  believe,  as  I  understand  them,  that 
God  willed  the  sin  of  Adam,  and  moreover  willed,  as  it  was 
formerly,  that  the  guilt  of  this  sin  should  descend  upon 
all  his  posterity  ;  but  as  it  is  laid  down  in  the  Improved 
Version,*  that,  in  consequence  of  his  disobedience,  all  his 
descendants  were  constituted  sinners — born  with  a  nature 
totally  depraved,  utterly  incapable  of  any  act  of  virtue — 
but  subject  for  this  sin  of  their  progenitor,  or  the  moral 
impotence  which  it  entailed  upon  them,  to  the  wrath  and 
curse  of  God,  and  the  pains  of  Hell  for  ever.f 

Corresponding  to  this  doctrine  of  original  helpless  depra- 
vity and  guilt,  are  the  doctrines  of  irrespective  decrees  and 
special  grace  ;  by  which  we  learn,  that  some,  elected  from 
eternity  of  mere  good  pleasure,  without  any  regard  to  their 
disposition  or  character,  are  the  subjects  of  a  special  super- 

*  See  creed  of  the  Andover  Institution. 

f  The  eternal  misery  of  those  dying  in  infancy,  except  the  children 
of  believers,  (?'.  e.  Calvinists,)  was  long  considered  the  necessary  infer- 
ence from  this  doctrine  of  original  sin.  The  orthodox  now,  I  believe, 
are  so  good  as  to  say,  that  possibly  they  may  not  go  to  Hell  ;  or,  if 
they  do,  it  will  not  be  to  the  worst  part  of  the  iuferual  regions. 


OR  A  CALVINIST?  57 

natural  influence,  giving  them  saving  faith,  a  particular  ex- 
ercise towards  the  Saviour,  which  orthodoxy  seems  to  put 
as  the  sign  or  the  substitute  of  the  whole  of  duty  which 
secures  their  admission  to  Heaven  ;  whilst  the  other  part 
of  the  race,  and  the  great  majority,  incapable  of  any  accep- 
table act  without  this  grace,  which  yet  God  will  not  give, 
and  which  they  can  neither  do  any  thing,  nor  even  desire 
nor  try  to  do  any  thing,  to  procure,  are  doomed  to  eternal 
wrath. 

Then  follows  the  comfortable  doctrine  of  Saints1  perse- 
verance,  which  teaches,  that  having  received  this  grace, 
they  will  never  lose  it ;  they  need  not  fear  being  cast  off, 
whatever  sins  they  may  be  left  to  commit 

These  and  other  views  of  religion,  contained  in  this  iron 
system,  appear  to  many  laymen  as  well  as  clergymen,  most 
false  and  pernicious,  proceeding  from  a  vain  spirit  of  specu- 
lation, and  the  dotage  of  system,  contrary  Jo  the  general 
tenour  of  the  scriptures,  and  supported  only  by  single, 
detached,  and  figurative  expressions,  understood  in  the 
gross  and  literal  sense.  They  appear  to  us  hurtful  to 
general  morality,  opposed  to  the  true  character  of  God, 
tending  to  produce  intolerable  spiritual  pride  and  bigotry 
in  one  class,  often  the  least  worthy,  and  causeless  anxiety 
and  tormenting  oppression  in  another  ;  whilst  aversion  and 
skepticism  towards  all  religion  are  often  generated  by  them 
in  the  minds  of  multitudes. 

I  am  glad  that  these  subjects  will  now  be  investigated 
and  displayed  before  the  publick. 

Much  is  said  about  the  early  reformers,  and  the  faith 
which  they  held,  and  it  is  made  an  accusation  against  the 
real  christians  of  the  present  day,  that  they  do  not  adopt 
all  the  opinions  of  the  first  reformers.  It  would  be  strange 
indeed,  and  against  all  analogy  and  experience,  if  these  had 
passed  suddenly  from  great  corruptions  to  the  most  perfect 


j3  ark  you  a  christian 

light.  Some  of  the  early  prejudices  of  their  youth  an'J 
education  would  adhere  to  Ihem  ;  and  it  is  an  historical  fact, 
that  no  sooner  were  they  relieved  from  the  thraldom  of  the 
.Romish  church,  than  they  adopted  the  same  spirit  of 
persecution,  and  maintained  the  same  abominable  doctrine 
of  the  supremacy  of  the  church,  tLat  the  Pope  had  done. 

Some  however  had  more  calholick  ideas,  and  I  shall  con- 
clude tills  essay  with  the  sentiments  of  the  venerable  Mr. 
Robinson*  the  pastor  of  the  church  at  Ley  den,  who  were  after- 
wards the  founders  of  New-England.  "  Brethren,  if  God  re-- 
veal  any  thing  unto  you,  be  as  ready  to  receive  it  as  you 
were  any  thing  by  my  ministry,  for  I  am  verily  persuaded, 
I  am  very  confident,  that  the  Lord  lias  more  truth  yet  to 
break  forth  out  of  his  holy  word.  For  my  part,  I  cannot 
sufficiently  bewail  the  condition  of  the  reformed  churches, 
who  are  come  to  a  period  in  religion,  and  will  go  no  farther 
than  the  instruments  of  their  reformation.  The  Lutherans 
cannot  be  persuaded  to  go  beyond  what  Luther  saw,  and 
the  Calvinists,  you  see,  stick  fast  where  they  were  left  by 
that  great  man  of  God,  who  yet  saw  not  all  things.  This 
is  a  misery  much  to  be  lamented.  For  though  they  were 
burning  and  shining  lights  in  their  times,  yet  they  penetra- 
ted not  the  whole  counsel  of  God,  but,  were  they  now 
living,  would  be  as  willing  to  embrace  still  farther  light,  as 
that  which  they  first  received.  It  is  not  possible  the 
christian  world  should  come  so  lately  out  of  antichristian 
darkness,  and  that  perfection  of  knowledge  should  break 
forth  at  once." 

Suclrwere  Ihe  Catholick  sentiments  of  one  of  the  foun- 
ders of  the  New-England  church,  in  the  early  days  of  the 
reformation  ;  and  now,  when  we  have  had  the  light  of  two 
centuries  added  to  the  knowledge  which  the  world  then 
possessed,  centuries,  in  which  Christianity  has  been  better 
discussed,   and    more   research   has    been    made    in    the 


OR   A  GALVINIST?  59 

scriptures,  than  in  all  the  ages  which  preceded  them,  inclu- 
ding that  of  the  Genevan  Reformer,  we  are  told  by  a  set 
©f  men,  who  had  rather  dictate  than  study,  that  we  must 
not  alter  a  letter  in  the  creed  of  Calvin  !  1  ! 

If  any  should  be  disposed  to  censure  the  temper  in 
which  this  vindication  is  written,  they  should  remember, 
that  we  are  not  the  assailants.  They  should  peruse  the 
Panoplist  Review.  They  will  perceive  that  it  is  written 
with  the  most  unchristian  spirit,  and  is  couched  in  the  most 
offensive  terms,  of  any  writings,  which  these  evil  time  have 
produced. 

There  is  a  moderation,  sometimes,  which  betrays,  and 
which  is  as  unbecoming  as  the  want  of  it  is  at  others. 

If  when  our  venerated  pastors  and  friends  are  treated  as 
if  they  were  the  worst  of  felons,  we  imitate  the  modern 
Tartuffes,  and  meet  their  calumniators  with  a  smile,  and  a 
placid  and  serene  countenance,  we  shall  be  thought  to  Jbe 
pleased  or  indifferent  rather  than  indignant. 

It  is  from  the  scriptures,  that  we  are  to  learn  what  ought 
to  be  our  behaviour  in  such  cases.  Even  our  Lord  and 
master  always  adapted  his  language  to  the  persons  and  the 
case.  When  he  had  occasion  to  speak  of  the  scribes  and 
Pharisees  of  h is  day,  he  scruples  not  to  treat  them  as  they 
deserve. 

There  was  something  in  their  spirit  very  much  like  that 
of  the  Review  in  question. 

Do  men  believe,  that  the  race  of  scribes  and  Pharisees 
has  failed  ?  or  do  they  imagine,  that  they  arc  not  at  this  day 
as  deserving  of  the  censure  of  our  Saviour,  as  their  prede- 
cessors in  Jerusalem  ? 

What  condemnation  would  our  Saviour  pass  on  those  men, 
who  make  his  gospel  a  cloak  to  cover,  while  they  gratify, 
the  most  unholy  passions  ? 


t,  ARE  YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 

This  must  be  my  defence.  I  have  no  personal  feeling 
towards  these  accusers.  The  greater  part  of  them  I  never 
saw.  I  judge  of  them  only  by  their  fruits ;  and  by  their 
fruits  I  should  say,  that  I  have  no  wish  to  know  them  more. 
It  should  be  recollected,  that  it  is  the  cause  of  laymen  that 
I  defend,  against  an  attempt  to  control  the  freedom  of  their 
opinions,  and  their  right  of  selecting  their  pastors. 


CONCLUDING  ADDRESS. 

TO   LAYMEN   OF   ALL   SECTS. 
MY   BRETHREN, 

It  i3  impossible  that  you  should  have  read  with  atten- 
tion the  history  of  the  church  of  Christ,  without  being 
deeply  impressed  with  the  conviction,  that  human  passions 
are  never  so  strong,  and  the  powers  of  reasoning  never  so 
much  perverted,  as  when  employed  upon  the  controverted 
points  of  religion.  It  is  true,  that  this  is  the  most  momen- 
tous of  all  concerns ;  but  it  is  as  true,  that  the  interests  of 
Christianity  cannot  be  promoted  by  a  temper,  which  that 
religion  expressly  condemns,  and  the  opposite  to  which 
forms  its  most  distinguished  glory  and  praise.  Whether 
this  vehemence,  injustice  and  intolerance,  this  odium  theo- 
logicum,  which  have  marked,  while  they  have  impeded  and 
injured,  the  progress  of  Christianity  in  all  ages,  (at  least 
since  the  apostolical  influence  ceased  to  operate)  are  to  be 
attributed  to  the  shelter  and  security  which  men  feel  in  the 
indulgence  of  unworthy  passions,  under  the  specious  cloak 
of  conscience,  or  whether  these  bigots  (for  there  have  been 
such  on  all  sides)  are  really  more  transported  beyond  the 
bounds  of  moderation  on  this  topick,  than  on  any  other,  I 
leave  to  others  more  versed  in  the  human  character  to  de- 
cide. 


©R  A  CALVmiST?-  61 

This  however  we  all  know,  that  the  over  zealous  leaders 
on  theological  questions  have  been  generally  ambitious  and 
intriguing  men.  They  have  acted  in  all  times,  as  if  their 
own  glory  and  advancement,  and  not  those  of  religion,  were 
the  objects  of  their  pursuit. 

We  cannot  review  the  state  of  religious  controversy  in 
Massachusetts,  and  the  recent  clamours  which  have  been 
excited  against  certain  pastors  and  certain  tenets,  without 
recollecting,  what  we  know  to  be  the  fact,  that  for  many 
years,  Dr.  Morse,  and  those  who  have  chosen  to  identify 
their  cause  with  his  character  and  views,  knew  as  well 
as  they  now  do,  that  many  of  the  Boston  clergy  held 
opinions  opposed  to* those  of  Calvin,  and  in  conformity 
with  the  simple  doctrines  which  our  Saviour  himself 
taught.  They  knew  also,  that  these  opinions  were  gene- 
rally prevalent  among  the  laity  in  their  parishes.  Yet, 
during  all  this  period,  Dr.  Morse  courted  their  friendship, 
and  held  an  intimate  intercourse  with  the  men  he  now  de- 
nounces as  heretical.  It  was  not  till  after  his  ambitious 
views  on  the  college  were  defeated,  and  till  most  of  the 
parishes  in  Boston  felt  a  repugnance  to  his  introduction  into 
their  pulpits,  on  various  grounds,  that  he  became  an  open 
assailant. 

We  naturally  ask,  is  it  possible  that  the  great  body  of 
intelligent  laymen  in  Connecticut  and  Massachusetts  can 
countenance  an  attempt  to  invade  the  rights  of  conscience, 
originating  in  the  ignoble  passions  of  aspiring  and  intriguing 
men  ?  Can  they  believe,  that  a  great  part  of  the  citizens  of 
the  metropolis  of  New  England  will  be  driven  from  their 
faith  by  threats  and  insults,  as  impotent  as  they  are  unbe- 
coming ? 

Could  a  German  monk,  like  Luther,  encounter  the  power 
and  brave  the  resentment  of  such  a  potentate  as  Charles 
the  V.  and  do  they  believe  that  we  are  to  be  awed  into 


62 


ARE  YOU  A  CHRISTIAN 


silence,  or  frowned  into  submission,  by  a  few  intolerant  and 
assuming  men  ? 

No.  Our  opinions  are  too  firmly  rooted,  and  our  know- 
ledge of  our  rights  too  deeply  settled,  to  permit  them  to 
form  such  hopes.  But  the  friends  of  Christianity  have  more 
interesting  considerations  to  weigh.  Whether  they  consi- 
der us  as  orthodox  or  hereticks,  still  they  know  we  make 
open  profession  of  Christianity.  We  support  it  as  far  as 
we  are  able  by  our  morals  and  manners,  our  publick  pro- 
fessions, contributions  and  zeal. 

They  should  recollect,  that  our  country  presents  a  motley 
mixture  of  atheists,  deists,  and  sectarians  of  all  shades  and 
all  opinions. 

Surely,  in  such  a  state  of  things,  it  cannot  be  deemed  ad- 
vantageous to  the  cause  of  Christianity,  to  engage  in  a  cru- 
sade against  men,  who  are  among  the  most  pacifick  and  sin- 
cere friends  of  Christianity,  whose  example,  influence,  and 
exertions  are  uniformly  directed  to  its  support  and  exten- 
sion, and  whose  greatest  crime  is,  that  they  have  shewn 
an  indisposition  to  proselytism. 

If  our  faith  be  as  heretical  as  is  pretended,  it  cannot  be 
for  the  inlerest  of  those,  who  call  themselves  the  only  wise 
and  sound  part,  the  orthodox,  to  give  us  the  zeal,  the  form, 
and  consistency  of  party. 

We  are  all  well  aware,  what  were  the  hopes  entertained 
and  the  designs  formed  by  a  few  bigots,  who  have  calum- 
niated our  teachers,  and  attempted  to  undermine  their  influ- 
ence by  arts,  which  would  be  a  reproach  to  any  cause,  and 
which  are  scandalous  in  one  of  so  solemn  a  nature. 

They  hoped,  that  the  cry  of  heresy  would  operate  like 
the  spiritual  thunders  of  the  Vatican.  Like  Paul  IV,  they 
intended  to  revive  the  spirit  of  persecution  of  another  age, 
forgetling,  like  him,  that  the  day  of  spiritual  tyranny  had 
gone  by,  and  that  the  thunder  would  be  heard,  like  the 
niimick  artillery  of  the  stage. 


OR   A  CALVINIST?,  G$ 

If  I  were  a  zealot  in  favour  of  liberal  Christianity,  which 
I  am  far  from  being,  if  I  wished  to  see  it  extended  and 
triumphant,  I  should  say,  "Persecute  us,  compel  us  to 
exert  our  talents,  to  take  the  form  and  assume  the  spirit  of 
a  party.  Undented  and  uncorrupted  Christianity,  so  long 
restrained  by  civil  power  in  other  countries,  might  then 
spread.  Become  a  sect  and  distinction,  it  would  soon  have 
all  the  energy  which  belsngs  to  other  sects."  But  this  is 
against  our  principles.  We  wish  it  to  make  the  silent  but 
sure  progress,  which  truth  will  always  make,  as  knowledge 
and  virtue  extend  themselves. 

As  to  the  zeal  which  is  now  displayed  in  favour  of  Cal- 
vinism, you  must  all  be  sensible,  that  it  is  not  greater  than 
that,  which  so  long  supported,  and  still  supports  the  worst 
doctrines  of  the  Romish  church. 

It  is  not  comparable  to  the  ardour  and  sincerity  of  those, 
who  in  the  days  which  the  orthodox  call  so  enlightened, 
persecuted  the  persons  charged  with  sorcery. 

Yet  we  well  know,  that  after  the  delusion  of  the  moment 
had  past  away,  men  saw  none  of  those  open  interferences 
of  the  devil,  none  of  those  supernatural  agencies,  which  so 
long  deceived  a  fanatical  people,  and  the  belief  of  which-, 
to  the  disgrace  of  our  nation,  found  its  way  even  into  the 
sanctuaries  of  justice.  So  too,  we  would  fain  hope  and  sin- 
cerely believe,  that  when  the  present  infatuation  shall  have 
subsided,  we  shall  not  find  men  placing  religion  in  those 
miraculous  conversions  which  afford  such  consolatory  mat= 
ter  for  the  Panoplist.  Strange  consolation  indeed  !  won- 
derful perversion  of  human  reason  !  to  exult  over  the 
unhappy  victims  of  deluded  fanaticism  ! 

Not  a  year  passes  over  our  heads,  in  which  there  are  not 
many  persons  of  amiable  and  susceptible  feelings,  driven 
by  mistaken  views  of  God  and  religion,  to  the  desperation 
of  suicide.     I  count  not  the  thousands  who  suffer  tortures 


64  ARE  YOU   A  CHRISTIAN 

produced  by  a  melancholy  which  neither  amends  the  heart 
nor  purifies  the  life,  while  it  renders  the  subjects  of  the 
malady  useless  to  society,  and  a  burden  to  themselves. 
Such  are  the  frequent  fruits  of  a  doctrine  derogatory  to 
God,  and  wholly  unfounded  in  scripture  !  Laymen  naturally 
take  simpler  views  of  religion,  than  those  who  are  involved 
in  the  subtleties  of  scholastick  divinity. 

We  ask  not,  what  may  possibly  be  the  construction  of  an 
obscure  passage  in  scripture,  written  in  a  language  suffi- 
ciently, but  at  best  imperfectly,  understood,  addressed  to 
men  who  had  particular  prejudices,  which  it  was  the  object 
of  the  apostles  tooxercome  ;  we  rather  ask  for  distinct  and 
intelligible  rules,  for  facts,  for  narrative,  for  examples.  We 
search  the  scriptures  in  vain  for  precedents  of  those  gloomy 
conversions,  which  are  now  represented  as  the  only  sure 
tests  of  regeneration  and  acceptance  with  God.  Were  the 
catechumens,  or  newly  converted  christians,  required  to 
shew  such  a  morbid  and  melancholy  state  of  mind,  as  are  at 
this  day  considered  the  proofs  of  the  gracious  interference 
of  God  ?  No.  Is  there  a  case  of  suicide  produced  by  the 
picture  given  by  the  apostles  of  the  attributes  of  God  ?  Not 
one.  It  is  not  more  true  that  the  doctrines  taught  by  our 
Saviour  did  not  produce  these  bitter  fruits  which  the  tree 
of  Calvinism  brings  forth,  than  it  is,  that  we  seldom  see  this 
sudden  conversion,  or  this  morbid  melancholy,  among  the 
conspicuous  leaders  and  teachers  of  these  doctrines.  No. 
The  penance  belongs  altogether  to  the  laity.  The  chief 
<luty  of  the  spiritual  fathers  is  to  preserve  their  authority, 
and  extend  the  influence  of  their  body.  Hence  we  have* 
seen  in  our  day  a  new  creation  ;  extended  associations  with, 
indefinite  powers.  A  new  "  society  of  Jesus"  with  more 
than  one  Loyola  at  its  head. 

People  who  are  acquainted  with  ecclesiastical  history 
will  not  smile  at  the  idea  of  this  new  combination.     The 


Or  a  calvinist?  G,5 

Panoplist  may  ridicule  as  much  as  it  pleases  the  suggestion 
that  they  aim  at  Ecclesiastical  tyranny.  We  perceive 
from  their  spirit,  that  the  power  only  is  wanting. 

These  new  associations,  if  not  watched  and  made  the 
objects  of  jealousy,  will  soon  become  tremendous  engines  in 
the  hands  of  skilful  and  ambitious  men.  The  Roman  pon- 
tiff who  dethroned  monarchs,  and  brought  the  emperours  of 
Europe  to  his  feet,  was  only  the  simple  successour  of  St. 
Peter,  who  walked  barefooted  to  Rome,  and  fell  a  martyr 
to  his  faith,  in  that  city  where  his  successour  sat  enthroned 
in  purple. 

At  this  moment,  the  general  associations,  though  created 
with  the  view  of  forcing  conformity  to  Calvinism,  and  extir- 
pating heresy,  appear  very  harmless.  They  terminate  in 
pleasant  tours  at  free  cost :  much  respect  and  good  cheer  to 
the  delegates. 

If  the  end  should  be  defeated,  the  reward  is  felt  in  the 
honour  and  distinction  of  those  employed.  If  succesful, 
and  heresy  should  be  put  down  ;  if  they  can  force  the  in- 
habitants of  opulent  towns  to  reject  their  beloved  pastors, 
much  fame  will  attend  the  labourers,  and  some  solid  rewards. 

Laymen  in  general,  I  fear,  have  not  noticed  this  alarm- 
ing inroad  on  our  ecclesiastical  constitution.  A  new  form 
of  government  has  been  introduced,  without  the  authority 
of  the  people  or  the  state.  For  nearly  two  hundred  years 
the  discipline  of  our  churches  rested  on  the  Cambridge 
platform.  There  were  no  general  associations,  no  ecclesi- 
astical, assemblies  which  arrogated  to  themselves  the  right 
of  settling  matters  of  faith.  All  these  things  were  regulated 
by  councils  either  mutual  or  ex  parte,  called  for  each  par- 
ticular case.  The  general  convention  of  Congregational 
ministers  never  assumed  to  itself  supervisory,  or  legislative, 
or  judicial  powers.  If  any  publick  body  had  a  right  to 
assume  them,  certainly  that  body  had. 
9 


66  ARE  YOU  A   CHRISTIAN 

Suddenly  we  find  rising  up,  associations  in  every  state,  to 
which  only  one  party  are  invited,  and  these  again  are 
strengthened  by  similar  associations  through  almost  all  the 
northern  states. 

To  what  valuable  or  even  honourable  end  these  societies 
can  be  directed,  it  is  difficult  to  perceive ;  but  that  they 
may  have  the  most  pernicious  effects  on  the  rights  and  lib- 
erties of  the  citizens  in  matters  of  faith  we  can  all  see. 

The  authority  of  general  councils,  and  of  the  Roman 
see,  took  its  rise  in  commencements  infinitely  more  feeble. 

Once  established  and  acquiesced  in,  they  might  proceed 
as  the  associations  in  Connecticut  have  sometimes  done,  to 
separate  a  parish  and  its  pastor,  where  they  were  perfectly 
harmonious ;  and  to  strip  a  clergyman  of  his  sacerdotal 
character,  for  being  faithful  to  his  master. 

At  present,  however,  the  scheme  appears  to  us  as  absurd 
and  quixotick  as  it  is  bold  and  unjustifiable. 

A  set  of  men,  surrounded  with  enemies  in  their  own 
camp,  with  Methodists,  and  Baptists,  and  Universalists, 
scarcely  able  to  meet  their  parochial  and  domestick  foes, 
combine  to  carry  their  spiritual  arms  into  the  territories  of 
their  natural  allies,  the  liberal  christians  ;  allies  who,  at- 
tached to  Christianity  on  principle,  convinced  of  its  truth, 
zealous  for  its  propagation,  but  determined  that  it  shall  not 
suffer  by  a  misrepresentation  of  its  principles,  have  no 
other  end  in  view,  than  union  and  harmony  in  the  christian 
church,  and  the  liberty  of  worshipping  God  conformably  to 
what  they  believe  the  scripture  rules. 

Although,  from  necessity,  I  have  used  general  terms  when 
speaking  of  the  orthodox,  because  such  terms  were  assumed 
by  Dr.  Worcester  and  the  editors  of  the  Panoplist,  yet  I 
do  not  contend  (as  they  do)  with  regard  to  Unitarians, 
that  all  the  persons,  who  agree  with  them  on  some  points,  are 
•. csponsible  for  all  their  opinions  or  unfair  proceedings. 


OR  A  CALVINIST  ?  6? 

I  rejoice  to  believe  that  the  greater  part  of  the  Calvinists, 
or  the  orthodox,  or  the  true  christians,  (or  whatever  other 
name  they  may  choose  to  assumes)  disapprove  the  very 
improper,  uncharitable  measures,  adopted  by  these  persons 
"who  have  undertaken  to  speak  in  their  name. 

I  would  fain  believe,  nay,  1  do  verily  believe,  that  there 
are  not  ten  clergymen  in  this  state,  who  do  not  in  their 
hearts  condemn  the  shameful  article  in  the  Panoplist,  and 
the  violent  and  indecent  measures  taken  to  bring  about  a 
theological  quarrel.  If  I  am  mistaken  in  this,  I  shall  be 
compelled  to  withdraw  much  of  the  respect  I  yet  have  for 
the  Calvinistick  clergy. 

I  am  aware  that  it  may  be  said  by  the  orthodox,  we  con- 
sider your  opinions  as  heretical,  we  view  them  as  hostile 
to  the  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity,  and  that  we  are  as 
much  bound  to  oppose  them  as  the  attacks  of  avowed  unbe- 
lievers. But  it  should  be  recollected  that  this  is  the  same 
language  which  was  employed  by  the  Catholicks  in  opposi- 
tion to  the  Reformers.  If  these  gentlemen  are  sincere  in 
this  opinion,  let  them  adopt  the  only  course  which  the  prin- 
ciples of  the  reformation  admit.  Let  them  attack  these 
heresies,  if  they  deem  them  such,  by  argument,  not  by  as- 
sociations. Names  and  numbers  have  no  tendency,  in  such 
an  age  as  this  to  enforce  the  belief  of  opinions  which  must 
depend  on  argument  and  fact.  Let  them  assert  the  doc- 
trine of  the  infallibility  of  the  early  reformers,  and  shew, 
that  they  arrived  at  once  from  the  the  darkest  super- 
stition and  the  most  absurd  opinions,  to  the  most  perfect 
light — that  they  possessed  the  gift  of  inspiration,  and  that 
to  their  opinions  full  and  implicit  faith  is  due. 

But  surely  the  course  which  has  been  adopted  is  not  con- 
sonant to  fair  reasoning,  or  the  spirit  of  the  gospel.  It 
cannot  be  reputable  for  any  sect  to  set  forward  the  most 
audacious  and  least  respected  of  their  party,  to  overwhelm 
their  adversaries  with  abuse  and   calumny.     To  place   at 


68  AllE  YOU  A  CHRISTIAN,  &c. 

their  bead,  men  in  whom  neither  party  have  confidence. 
Let  them  rather  select  the  ablest  and  purest,  and  meekest 
persons  of  their  party,  and  depute  them  to  display  and  de- 
fend their  doctrines  in  a  temperate  and  rational  manner- 
It  is  by  force  of  reasoning  alone  that  Christianity  has  made 
its  principal  progress  in  the  world.  It  is  one  of  its  most 
powerful  arguments  and  supports  in  opposition  to  Mahome- 
tanism  and  other  false  religions,  that  it  has  not  generally 
employed  the  sword,  but  has  relied  on  its  intrinsick  merit 
for  its  support. 

This  principle  ought  not  to  be  deserted  in  cases  of  dis- 
sension as  to  the  more  minute  doctrines  of  the  gospel.  To 
use  the  weapons  of  scurrility  and  abuse  on  this  most  sol- 
emn subject,  to  excite  the  worst  passions  of  mankind,  and 
more  especially  to  form  combinations  to  put  down  free  in- 
quiry and  excite  odium  against  those  who  hold  opinions 
differing  from  ours,  would  argue  a  spirit  little  less  hostile 
than  the  expedient  of  the  darker  ages,  the  condemnation 
of  hereticks  to  the  stake. 

We  therefore  hope,  that  all  parties  will  unite  in  condemn- 
ing this  illiberal  spirit.  That  there  will  be  a  common  con- 
sent to  denounce,  as  unworthy  of  the  cause  of  Christ,  such 
publications  as  the  Review  in  the  Panoplist,  and  that  the 
orthodox  will  with  one  voice  agree  to  advise  Dr.  Worcester, 
to  adopt  a  course  in  some  small  degree  consonant  to  the 
spirit  of  the  gospel,  and  to  the  enlightened  age  which  it  has 
pleased  God  to  permit  us  to  enjoy.  In  a  struggle  to  elicit 
truth,  to  establish  the  fundamental  articles  of  Christianity, 
we  engage  that  the  liberal  clergy  will  not  shrink  from  their 
share  of  the  labour,  and  we  pledge  ourselves,  from  our 
knowledge  of  them,  that  they  will  not  be  outdone  in  zeal 
for  Christianity,  in  efforts  to  draw  from  the  rich  mines  of 
literature  and  biblical  learning  the  means  of  informing  th« 
minds,  and  settling  the  faith  of  christians. 

A  LAYMAN. 


NOTE. 


I  have  said,  that  I  could  not  condescend  to  notice  the  scurri- 
lous attacks  of  the  Panoplist  on  the  revered  head  of  our  Uni- 
versity. .  .  (.  ....  „ 
There  seemed  to  be  something  so  base,  in  setting  children 
to  watch  the  exercises  on  publick  occasions,  and  collecting  "  re- 
spectable gentlemen  from  different  parts  of  the  American  union 
to  act  as  inquisitors  upon  the  occasion,  that  I  could  not  persuade 
myself,  that  such  measures  would  produce  any  other  sensation 
than  contempt. 

But  as  I  have  an  opportunity  of  shewing  the  temper  witti 
which  the  Panoplist  is  conducted,  and  the  means  which  it  has 
adopted  to  cast  an  odium  on  the  college,  I  think  I  ought  not  to 
omit  it.  It  was  stated  in  the  Panoplist  that  Dr.  Kirkland  had 
written  "  a  letter  of  consolation  and  encouragement  to  the  new 
Unitarian  church  in  Philadelphia." 

We  presumed  this  must  have  been  true.  We  could  not  have 
believed  that  any  clergyman  would  have  dared  to  suggest  such  a 
thing  without  evidence. 

It  seems,  however,  from  the  evidence  we  are  now  to  exhibit, 
that  it  was  not  true. 

One  of  the  gentlemen  who  officiate  in  that  church  having  seen 
the  Panoplist,  of  his  own  accord  wrote  in  a  letter  to  his  friend 
in  Boston,  the  original  of  which  is  now  before  me,  as  follows  : 

"  I  perceive  he,  Dr.  Kirkland,  is  accused  of  having  written  a 
letter  of  consolation  and  encouragement  to  the  new  Unitarian 
church  in  Philadelphia. 

"  Had  the  fact  been  so,  there  is  nothing  to  call  forth  any  cen- 
sure, as  not  a  word  of  the  letter  is  even  quoted :  but  the  truth  is, 
no  such  letter  was  ever  written. 

"  I  have  made  strict  inquiry,  and  find  that  there  was  a  letter 
written  by  Dr.  Kirkland  to  Mr.  Vaughan,  in  answer  to  some 
queries  as  to  the  terms  of  admission  and  tuition  at  Cambridge, 
and  the  rules  of  the  college,  and  this,  or  a  non-entity,  must  be  the 
letter  of  encouragement  and  consolation,  which  we,  like  our 
apostle  Belsham,  have  been  complaisant  enough  to  publish,  by 
shewing  it  to  some  of  our  orthodox  friends.  "  Our  apostle  Bel- 
sham,"  with  whom  we  have  neither  intercourse  nor  correspon- 
dence, and  to  whose  creed,  as  set  forth  in  the  Panoplist.  I  hazard 
nothing  in  saying  not  one  of  us  would  assent. 


TO  NOTES. 

"  I  should  like  if  it  were  possible,  to  put  such  a  man  as  the 
writer  of  the  article  in  the  Panoplist  to  the  blush,  to  ask  him 
when  this  letter  was  written,  to  whom  it  was  addressed,  who  was 
made  acquainted  with  its  contents,  and  what  it  really  did  contain. 

"  After  so  gross  a  falsehood,  the  strictures  on  the  prayers  of 
the  President  can  only  deceive  those  who  are  resolved  to  sup- 
port what  they  call  orthodoxy  at  the  expense  of  truth  and  con- 
sistency. Perhaps  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  mention  the  fact  now 
stated.  You  well  know  my  situation  in  our  church,  and  that  if 
any  letter  of  consolation  had  been  sent  from  so  respectable  a 
quarter  as  the  above,  I  could  not  have  been  kept  in  ignorance 
either  of  its  contents  or  existence.  You  also  know  that  we  have 
never  been  in  a  situation  to  need  consolation.  Among  ourselves 
we  have  had  uninterrupted  harmony,  and  all  the  calumnies  and 
denunciations  of  '  the  pious,'  the  '  orthodox,'  and  the  '  evan- 
gelical' have  been  unheeded." 


NOTE  2. 

After  the  foregoing  remarks  were  put  to  the  press,  I  received 
the  last  number  of  the  Panoplist,  which  contains  the  proceedings 
of  one  of  the  new  grand  associations,  to  which  I  have  referred, 
and  whose  object  is  now  more  distinctly  developed,  than  it  has 
heretofore  been.  It  is  too  late  for  me  to  enter  into  the  conside- 
ration of  the  deep  project  which  is  now  laid  open,  to  break  down 
the  constitution,  by  which  the  churches  of  this  state  have  been 
governed  for  more  than  a  century  and  an  half.  It  will  require  a 
separate  and  more  enlarged  examination  than  I  can  possibly  give 
to  it  in  the  present  stage  of  my  essay.  I  have  no  doubt  that  it 
will  excite  such  feelings  as  will  call  forth  the  ablest  champions 
of  the  rights  of  the  church. 

This  project,  though  covered  by  as  much  art  and  sophistry,  as 
has  ever  been  displayed  by  men  aiming  at  secret  encroachments 
on  fhe  rights  of  others,  is  simply  this,  under  colour  of  enforcing 
and  amending,  to  abrogate  and  annul,  the  Cambridge  platform, 
which  has  been  the  rule  of  discipline,  and  palladium  of  our  reli- 
gious liberties,  from  the  earliest  settlement  of  our  country,  and  to 
substitute  in  its  place  a  new  ecclesiastical  tribunal,  unknown  to 
our  ancestors,  and  subversive  of  our  religious  rights. 

To  give  it  some  degree  of  respect  from  antiquity,  an  obsolete 
manuscript  of  Dr.  Cotton  Mather  has  been  drawn  forth  from  the 
rubbish  of  the  last  century,  and  is  now  attempted  to  be  imposed 
Upon  the  christian  churches  of  this  state  as  the  rule  of  their 
government.  Even  these  gentlemen  did  not  venture  on  their 
►pylarity  to  hazard  such  an  innovation  and  revolution  in 


NOTES'.  71 

(he  church.  Even  they  are  constrained  to  admit  that  it  was  so  odi- 
ous in  Massachusetts,  in  1 706,  when  it  was  proposed,  "  that  there 
were  some  considerable  persons  among  the  ministers,  (even  in 
that  day)  as  well  as  of  the  brethren,  who  thought  the  liberties  of 
partiadar  churches  to  be  in  danger  of  being  limited  and  infringed 
by  them.  In  deference  to  these,  the  proposals  were  never  prose- 
cuted beyond  the  bounds  of mere  proposals" 

In  other  words,  they  did  not  dare  attempt  to  carry  the  propo- 
sals into  effect,  at  a  time  when  religious  liberty  was  less-  under- 
stood, and  the  rights  of  conscience  less  valued  than  at  this 
moment. 

And  why  did  they  not  ?  Because  the  proposals  go  to  the  utter 
abolition  of  the  right  of  churches  to  govern  themselves. 

They  confer  the  right  on  ecclesiastical  councils,  to  put  any 
church  out  of  the  pale  of  christian  communion.  They  confer 
the  right  on  these  councils,  not  chosen  by  the  parties,  to  refuse 
ordination,  and  to  depose  any  clergyman,  even  against  the  con- 
sent of  any  member  of  his  own  church  and  parish.  The  reserva- 
tion of  not  extending  the  power  beyond  the  churches  who  may 
join  this  confederacy,  against  the  liberties  of  the  people,  we  know 
how  to  appreciate,  by  the  conduct  of  the  Tolland  association. 

We  are  however  encoumged  to  accept  it,  by  the  suggestion 
that  Connecticut  did  at  that  day  adopt  it.  Yes,  she  did,  and  we 
have  seen  its  fruits.  The  recommendation  in  brief  is,  that  Mas- 
sachusetts shall  abolish  her  religious  charter,  and  conform  her  dis- 
cipline to  that  of  Connecticut,  though  she  nobly  refused  so  to  do, 
one  hundred  years  ago. 

I  am  pleased  to  see,  that  the  association  had  not  sufficient  in- 
discretion to  recommend  this  project  for  immediate  adoption.  I 
flatter  myself  that  the  greater  part  of  them  disapprove  it.  If 
adopted,  it  will  prove  a  fatal  blow  to  the  influence  and  standing 
of  the  Congregational  clergy.  The  forcing  through  such  a  plan, 
in  derogation  of  our  present  church  constitution,  and  tending  to 
destroy  the  only  check  which  laymen  now  have  on  ecclesiasti- 
cal usurpation,  I  am  afraid  would  be  the  signal  of  commotions  iu 
the  church,  which  would  only  end  in  the  utter  destruction  of 
Congregational  churches  and  discipline.  This  is  no  idle  fear. 
It  is  solemn  conviction.  Many  are  the  hours  which  most  dis- 
tinguished laymen  have  spent,  and  great  have  been  their  exer- 
tions, to  stem  that  torrent  of  innovation  and  opposition  to  the 
regular  clergy,  which  for  twenty  years  has  threatened  to  under- 
mine the  feeble  props  which  they  still  enjoy  under  the  consti- 
tution. 

But  if  the  minority  feel  that  they  are  to  be  oppressed,  if  revo- 
lutions are  to  be  set  on  foot  by  those  whom  the  laity  have 
laboured  to  protect,  they  must  suppose  them  to  be  mare  than 


72  IVOTEe. 

men,  if  they  continue  to  offer  themselves  a*  a  rampart  to  protect 
ihose  who  are  labouring  to  destroy  their  dearest  rights. 

It  would  be  easy  to  shew,  and  it  will  be  shewn,  that  this  project 
is  also  a  direct  violation  of  the  constitution,  laws,  and  liberties  of 
Massachusetts.  Men  can  make  any  associations  they  please,  but 
they  cannot  give  them  the  smallest  practical  efficacy  or  power 
without  the  aid  of  the  government.  If  they  invite  that  govern- 
ment to  interfere  in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  and  to  regulate  the  dis- 
cipline or  faith  of  churches,  they  will  soon  find,  that  they  have 
entered  a  path  beset  with  thorns,  from  which  they  may  in  vain 
wish  to  extricate  themselves.  Abolish  the  Cambridge  Platform 
and  the  Congregational  churches  will  soon  be  found  on  a  tempes- 
tuous sea,  without  compass,  or  rudder,  or  pilots.  The  courts  of 
law  will  however  protect  the  people  against  such  usurpations. 

We  ask,  if  such  a  plan  was  deemed  proper,  why  did  they  not 
submit  it  to  the  Convention  of  Ministers  in  Massachusetts,  to 
whom  it  was  first  submitted  by  Mr.  Mather  ? 

Why  ask  the  consent  of  a  body  unknown  to  our  laws  and 
usages,  a  body  self  created,  and  naturally  liable  to  suspicion,  as  it 
excludes  all  who  differ  from  it  in  articles  of  faith  ? 

Such  proceedings  must  and  will  excite  distrust.  They  furnish 
a  new  proof,  that  clergymen  are  too  apt  to  neglect  the  most  useful 
study,  that  of  mankind,  although  their  chief  object  ought  to  be  to 
know  them  thoroughly,  in  order  to  be  useful  to  them  in  their 
ministry.  It  will  not  tend  to  render  the  new  scheme  more 
acceptable  to  the  publick,  that  its  arrangement  was  confided  to 
those  who  do  not  enjoy  much  of  the  publick  confidence. — The 
project  appears  to  have  been  formed,  and  is  subscribed,  only 
by  Jedidiah  Morse  of  Connecticut.  It.  is  worthy  of  considera- 
tion, whether  there  should  not  be  a  covenant  instantly  formed 
by  the  friends  of  religious  freedom,  and  of  the  Cambridge  Plat- 
form, for  its  defence  against  all  schemes  of  innovation,  and  a 
publick  convention  of  laity  and  clergy  of  those  opinions,  called 
to  adopt  measures  to  counteract  this  conspiracy  against  the 
church  and  its  ancient  rights. 

The  foregoing  strictures  were  principally  written  and  in  the  press,  at  a  time  when  it 
was  supposed  that  Mr.Clianning  would  not  reply  to  sucli  a  letter  as  Dr.  Worcester*; 
Had  it  t>een  known  that  Mr.  Churning  would  have  undertaken  his  own  justification, 
many  of  the  foregoing  remarks  would  have  been  suppressed  as  unnecessary. 


*tf,<M?;7 


•As 


1 


&**T 


